Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

PETITION

Licensed Premises, Wales (Sunday Closing)

Mr. G. Roberts: I beg to ask leave to present a humble Petition, signed by 72,688 citizens of Northern Wales, who desire to express most emphatically and sincerely their opposition to any interference with the Welsh Sunday Closing Act and to call for the same control over registered clubs as already exists over public houses. The Petition concludes:
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.

TRADE AND NAVIGATION

Accounts ordered, relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1956.— [Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

British Embassy, Cairo

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Minister of Works what price has been asked from the Egyptian Government for the surrender of the Nile frontage of the British Embassy at Cairo to enable the embankment road to be built.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Patrick Buchan-Hepburn): The agreed compensation paid for the surrender of the land was £308,000.

Mr. Brockway: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman?

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Upon what?

Mr. Brockway: Is this not a rather large figure?

Mr. Stokes: No.

Mr. Brockway: Is it not the fact that nothing was paid for this land when the British Embassy took possession of it? Would it not be better to try to create good relations with the Egyptian Government, which might have an effect on wider matters, by being more just on this occasion?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: The fact is that this was not considered too large a figure for compensation. After all, we must remember that the frontage is of value, and apart from that, very expensive buildings have been erected on the site. Only last year additional buildings were erected by the British Government costing nearly £200,000. The negotiations with the Egyptian Government have been entirely amicable, and that was the figure they offered.

Government Offices (Fire Precautions)

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Works whether the cause of the fire at the Admiralty has now been investigated; and what improved precautions in Government offices have been put into effect.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: Investigations have been carried out by the London Fire Brigade and my Department's fire officers.


The cause cannot be determined with certainty, but is likely to have been due to a match or a cigarette end.
I believe that the existing precautions in occupied Government offices are adequate. Instructions have, however, now been given that buildings such as the Admiralty old building, which are empty and in which building work is being carried out, are to be patrolled at night in order to reduce the risk of accidental fire.

Lieut-Colonel Upton: While welcoming the improved precautions now being adopted to ensure that no buildings in Whitehall are left unattended, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say why the member of the public who first reported this fire was detained for ten hours at Cannon Row Police Station? That does not seem to be very encouraging to members of the public who are trying to make up for the negligence of the Government in these matters.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: That is nothing to do with me. But I can say that the police are satisfied that the young man in question had nothing to do with the cause of the fire.

Staff

Mr. Holt: asked the Minister of Works the new duties undertaken by his Department which at present require the employment of 13,100 civil servants compared with 6,300 in April, 1939; and if he will give the increased number employed under each category and the reduction he expects to make in the coming year.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: The main increase is due to the increase in the amount of work undertaken by my Department. In 1939 my Department had 7,850 buildings to maintain: now it has 16,663, while the complexity of much of the design and construction work, for example on large Government research stations, is much greater. The number of staff has been reduced from just over 21,000 in 1947 to about 13,000 at present, and the possibility of a further reduction is constantly under review.

Mr. Holt: Can the Minister say whether he has yet had time to examine this aspect of his Department in detail, and also whether we can expect any substantial reductions in personnel in the near future?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I have said that this matter is constantly under review. That means that it is under my review.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. In view of the very large number of people he employs, will he look into the matter of providing one more custodian for the ancient monument of Avebury?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: The hon. Gentleman and I have been in correspondence upon that matter, and he knows that I am sympathetic towards the idea, if it can be done.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Is the Minister aware that in so far as the size of his Department is due to the need for ensuring a supply of essential building materials and in order to protect these monuments, in which this country is so rich, there will certainly be no public criticism?

Government Buildings (Heating)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Minister of Works the annual consumption of coal, coke and similar solid fuels for heating in Government offices; and what steps are being taken to reduce it by changing over to oil.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: The annual consumption of solid fuel in those Government buildings—including offices—where my Department is responsible for providing heating is approximately 410,000 tons. Oil burning equipment is being installed in most new buildings and in replacement of worn-out solid fuel burning equipment in existing buildings. Twenty-three conversions from solid fuel to oil have been carried out in the past year and five more are now in hand. I am considering whether it is practicable to extend this programme.

Mr. Grimond: May I take it that it is the policy of the Ministry eventually to change over entirely to oil-burning equipment?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: Yes, I think that will be the case—certainly in the major buildings.

Hyde Park (Road Entrances)

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Works when the road entrances to Hyde Park are to be improved.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: The experimental roundabout inside the Park near the Victoria Gate is now in operation, and traffic conditions there are being carefully observed. Proposals which affect other road entrances to Hyde Park are under detailed examination.

Repeater Station, Halesworfh

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Works whether he will reconsider his decision not to release the Repeater Station, Bungay Road, Halesworth, for the purpose of providing factory accommodation in that town, in view of the fact that the place is only partly used and that alternative accommodation for the purposes of stockpiling is available in the vicinity.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I have already explained to the hon. Member why I am not at present prepared to sell this building. If it should prove possible in the future to dispense with this store without having to build a replacement I shall certainly do so.

Mr. Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the extreme disappointment of residents and the local authority at his refusal to release this building, if only on lease? In view of the reported statement that the Government propose to do away with stockpiling, and the fact that the store is only one-third occupied, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter, which is one of extreme local importance.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I quite understand and sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's feeling in this matter, but I cannot go further than what I said in the second part of my reply. If it proves possible in future to dispense with this store I shall certainly take steps to see that it is dispensed with.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Graduate Allowances and Senior Research Awards

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, if, in the interests of improving technical education and research in this country, he will double

the number of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research students now being awarded, and will increase the number of senior research awards.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. J. R. Bevins): The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research awards about 400 new maintenance allowances each year to young graduates in science and technology. It is doubtful whether this figure could be substantially increased without lowering standards or aggravating the shortage of new graduates for industry and teaching. The average number of senior research awards is only about five and could be increased if suitable candidates applied.

Mr. Fletcher: Is not the Minister aware that a very large number of suitable students are anxious to take up these awards? Does not he agree that unless they are encouraged to do so the Government will never be able to make progress in improving our technological education?

Mr. Bevins: What the hon. Member says is perfectly true. There are about a thousand applicants for these awards every year, and nearly half the number are granted awards; but the hon. Member must bear in mind that, the greater the number of awards made, the greater is the reduction in the availability of science graduates for teaching and industry.

Mr. Hector Hughes: When considering these technical improvements, will the Minister pay particular regard to the development of marine and fishery research, on the lines of the research which is carried on so excellently at the Torry Research Station, near Aberdeen, the work of which is extremely necessary in order to preserve the fishing in the North Sea?

Mr. Bevins: I shall bring that suggestion to the notice of my noble Friend.

Scientists and Engineers (Recruitment)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council (1) if he will call a conference of representatives of Her Majesty's Government, the


Advisory Council on Scientific Policy Committee on Scientific Manpower, the Manchester College of Technology, and representatives of the appropriate educational institutions within a forty miles radius of Manchester to consider what co-ordinated action shall be taken on the Report on the Recruitment of Scientists and Engineers by the engineering industry, a copy of which is in his possession, and to consider recommendations to be made by the Principal of the Manchester College of Technology on the urgency of the need for action;
(2) if he has yet considered the Report on the Recruitment of Scientists and Engineers by the Engineering Industry prepared by the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy; if he will make a full statement on the Report; and what action it is intended to take;
(3) what consultations he has had with the nationalised industries on the subject of the Report on the Recruitment of Scientists and Engineers by the Engineering Industry; what consideration he has given to the evidence submitted to the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy including the letters sent in on the problems raised in this Report; and what action it is intended to take.

Mr. Bevins: My noble Friend has considered this important Report, and the Government are, of course, well aware of the urgent need for producing more highly qualified scientists and engineers. As the hon. Member knows, the Prime Minister recently announced that the Government hope to issue a White Paper very soon setting out their plans for the development of technical education, and I would ask the hon. Member to await the White Paper.

Mr. Smith: That is all right to be going on with, but will the Minister inform his noble Friend of the statement made by one of the greatest authorities in the country today, namely, that the Soviet Union is turning out twice as many engineers per year as the whole of the Western world? In view of that and other statements, and the desire of industry itself to get a move on in order that we may keep in the forefront of world development, will the Minister endeavour to see that this matter is treated as one of great urgency?

Mr. Bevins: It is being treated as a matter of great urgency. I have no doubt that my noble Friend is conversant with what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Roads (Ice Removal)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Parliamen tary Secretary to the Ministry of Works,as representing the Lord President of the Council, what progress has been made by the Road Research Laboratory in its experiments designed to de-ice slippery roads; and what assistance is to be given to highway authorities in this connection.

Mr. Bevins: The work of the Road Research Laboratory has confirmed that salt is generally the best means of remoing ice from roads. The Laboratory has issued a pamphlet to highway authorities on the subject.

Mr. Dodds: Does that mean that after all this research we are back where we were before, and that highway authorities must use the old methods?

Mr. Bevins: On the contrary; the Road Research Laboratory has not been idle in this matter. It has done a great deal of research in relation to the provision of electrical heating for difficult road surfaces, and already has a prototype machine for removing hard-packed snow from roads.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: In the meantime, can we have sufficient sand and gravel to deal with the situation?

Non-flammable Material

Mrs. Mann: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, how many samples of non flammable material have been submitted to the Joint Fire Research Organisation for testing; how many such samples con sisted of material suitable for children's lothing which meets with all the requirements laid down by the Inter-Departmental committee; and in what respects the other samples have failed to meet these requirements.

Mr. Bevins: One sample has so far been submitted. This had a reasonably low flammability. No standards for children's clothing have been laid down by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Accidents in the Home, but research is in


progress to provide the basis for a standard of flammability.

Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I last asked this Question I was told that no samples which were really non-flammable had ever been received, and that the Department was working with the United States to arrive at a suitable formula. Since then many firms in this country have been experimenting and have evolved a suitable formula. Will the hon. Gentleman make public the fact that his Department is willing to test these samples?

Mr. Bevins: I ought to add that a simple method of testing fabrics for flammability has been evolved by the Fire Research Organisation and will very soon be incorporated in a British standard. I think that will be helpful. It would also be helpful if the hon. Member would pay a visit to the Fire Research Station to see what is being done. I should be glad to arrange a visit.

Mrs. Mann: Is it now necessary to enter into negotiations with the United States? Is that not a needless expense?

Mr. Bevins: I understand that an American firm is working on this problem in this country and has produced results which are more or less parallel with those of the Fire Research Organisation.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Soldiers (Overseas Theatres)

Mr. Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider stopping immediately the sending of National Service men to Cyprus, Kenya and Malaya.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for War how many recruits have been sent to Cyprus after only ten weeks' training; and how many it is intended to send in the near future.

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that National Service men of the Highland Light Infantry are being sent to Cyprus after ten weeks' training; and if he will alter his regulations so as to prevent this.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): The rules governing the

eligibility of both Regulars and National Service men for posting to these theatres were introduced in 1947 and have continued unchanged except for Korea and the addition of acclimatisation training in Kenya and Malaya. Men must be not less than 18 years, 3 months, on embarkation and have completed not less than ten weeks' training, and a total of twelve weeks' service in this country. Most soldiers do more than this minimum. Long experience, and the record of the men themselves, have shown that these rules have worked.
Without very great clerical effort I cannot say how many of all the men now in Cyprus or previously sent there had completed only the bare minimum of training and service. The proportion was not large.

Mr. Allaun: Is it not utterly immoral to send lads of 18, too young even to have a vote, to kill and to be killed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and, as in the case of Cyprus, not to defend their own country but to deny freedom to others? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Does not the Minister appreciate the feelings of parents as their sons are drawn into this dirty mess created by our own Government?

Mr. Head: Nobody wants the necessity for National Service or desires that people should have to serve at that age. It has been done very often in the past. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have served at that age in various wars. All I can say is that both sides of the House—I am not trying to shift the responsibility —have given this matter careful thought. I can assure the hon. Member that this is the only way of working it. I am satisfied from my experience that, though nobody wants to do it, it does work and it has worked and I believe that it is the best method.

Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the great majority of National Service men and their parents very much resent this idea that they are hot-house flowers who are not to go into danger like Regular soldiers, and that they wish to do their full tasks?

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the proportion of time used by these men in continuing their training after ten


weeks in this country and the proportion used for other matters which are not training?

Mr. Head: That varies according to the country they are in. If they go to Kenya or Malaya they have a period of acclimatisation training. It depends upon what job they are in. By and large, I would say that the average unit spends quite a large proportion of its time in training, even in operational theatres.

Mr. Bence: Will the Minister investigate certain charges that were made in a Glasgow newspaper that National Service men are being offered by their officers the alternatives of going to Cyprus or signing on as Regulars?

Mr. Head: That is a very old question. It has come up before. I have stated, and I say again now, that any question of that form of what one might call blackmail recruiting is frowned upon by me. I am against it.

Mr. Shinwell: Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter of sending young lads overseas after only ten weeks' basic training when they are expected to engage in active service? Would he not make a distinction between places where, as in Cyprus, men are expected to engage in active service and, say, Germany, which is regarded as a home command, or any other part of the Middle East?

Mr. Head: The identical problem confronted the right hon. Gentleman himself in the Canal Zone, Kenya and Malaya, and he came to the same conclusion as we did, that if we extend beyond the minimum regulation that is necessary for those doing National Service we get into very great complications. This period of ten or twelve weeks' minimum service has worked in the past and is working today. I have not found any instance where difficulty is caused by lack of training.

Mr. Nairn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great many National Service men prefer to do their service overseas—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—are proud to serve their country in dangerous areas and are pleased to have the opportunity of seeing a great deal of what goes on outside this country and not to be confined all the time within the United Kingdom?

Mr. Head: I think that is so. I should like to add that these young men with comparatively little training have done frightfully well wherever they have served.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1947 and during the period of the Labour Government men were not sent overseas after ten weeks' basic training unless it was clearly understood—this was stated in the House on several occasions—that a suitable time should elapse before they were acclimatised and that they were not expected to engage in active service in Malaya or anywhere else?

Mr. Head: In fact the acclimatisation training rules in Malaya were brought in much later than that. It does not alter the fact that in the disturbances in the Middle East at the time when the Labour Government were in office the same rules obtained.

Personal Cases

Mr. Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will release from National Service a young Salford man, details about whom have been sent to him, who, having been discharged after nine months, on medical grounds, from the Regular Army, was then called up to do his National Service.

Mr. Head: No, Sir. This man was not up to the standard necessary to remain a Regular soldier but he was fit for National Service with base units. He is at present serving as an ammunition storeman near Carlisle, and I am advised that a specialist medical examination on 19th January showed him to be fit to remain in the Army.

Mr. Allaun: Why is there this distinction between the requirements for the Regulars and those for National Service men when, a moment ago, the Minister was defending the right to send conscripts to theatres of war?

Mr. Head: This is a very old question. Very briefly, I would say that the Regular who is going to make the Army his career must be prepared to serve anywhere overseas or at home. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the National Service man."] The National Service man, under the Regulations governing fitness, is called up if he is fit for base duties at home because


it is thought unfair that if he is able to serve he should be exempted when others are doing their National Service.

Mr Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the medical testimony that 23199255 Sapper J. Meager is physically and psychologically unfit for military service of any kind, what it is proposed to do with this young man.

Mr. Head: Sapper Meager has appeared before a medical board who recommended his discharge on medical grounds.

Mr. Dodds: Why is it that month after month I have to demand in this House that men who should never be in the Forces at all should come out? This is the twentieth man I have got out of the Forces. Is it not time to look at the system that takes them in?

Mr. Head: I have not noticed whether it is the twentieth time or not: I very much doubt it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The hon. Member, when he said "twentieth," may have spoken figuratively. I say that I am extremely surprised if as many as twenty men have come into this category. Sapper Meager was passed fit by the Ministry of Labour and sent to the Army. He was a psychiatric case. These cases are difficult. It is not easy at once to be certain about them. The hon. Member will appreciate that we have to be careful in these psychiatric cases, and, to be sure of our ground, we have them studied by specialists.

Mr. Dodds: On a point of order. Since the Minister cast doubt on the statement I made, may I ask whether he is aware that I am referring to men passed by the Ministry of Labour and taken into the Royal Air Force and the Army, and the number is now twenty?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the case of Private Harry Crutchley of Salford, whose blind mother was left without care for eighteen months, yet whose release from National Service, previously refused, was secured within three days of newspapers drawing attention to the matter, he will order an immediate re-investigation of all rejected appeals for release from National Service in the Army.

Mr. Head: The hon. Member's facts are wrong.
Private Crutchley made no application for deferment of call-up because of his mother's blindness, probably because she then lived with his grandmother. He did apply for release in August when this arrangement finished, but his application was refused because his sister said that she would look after her. Subsequently, this arrangement broke down and it was then that the soldier was released.
We take particular trouble to give careful and sympathetic consideration to appeals for release on compassionate grounds, and I think that the hon. Member's Question is highly misleading.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that Private Crutchley went absent without leave six times in order to be with his mother, but that his release was still refused? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members must now agree that Private Crutchley was right. Is the Minister further aware that I am at present dealing with no fewer than eight similar cases—mostly of men whose mothers are widows with large numbers of small children? Does not that indicate that there must be a very large number of tragic cases which need re-examination?

Mr. Head: I am particularly interested in the subject. The Army has to be careful, first, that genuine cases are dealt with promptly and sympathetically, and secondly, that bogus cases are resisted. It is most important that we should be scrupulously fair in these matters. We are helped by S.S.A.F.A. and many other organisations. I think that, on the whole, we have looked into such cases very carefully, but if the hon. Member has knowledge of other cases of a similar kind I hope that he will let me know.

Full Dress

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for War what facilities are given to units desirous of using full dress uniforms for special occasions.

Mr. Head: The Household Brigade and the King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery wear full dress on ceremonial occasions. For other troops it is now obsolete.

Mr. Johnson: Would my right hon. Friend consider allowing units to keep a small amount of full dress permanently in stock for use by their bands on special occasions?

Mr. Head: All that has been gone into, and units are well aware of it. The reason why full dress is obsolete is the expense of maintaining it.

Territorial Army (Bounty Payment)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for War the conditions governing the payment of a bounty to men joining the Territorial Army; and what steps are taken to ensure that these conditions are fully understood.

Mr. Head: Bounties are payable to members of the Territorial Army who carry out prescribed training. The full conditions are set out in Territorial Army Regulations which are available in all units.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the steps taken to make known the conditions of this bounty are in many cases not full and adequate, and give rise to a lot of unnecessary resentment? If he is not aware of it, could he look into the matter?

Mr. Head: The conditions are laid down in Regulations. It is the duty of units to make this information known to the men concerned. If the hon. Member can give me specific examples, I will look into them.

N.A.A.F.I. Prices, Cyprus

Major Wall: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction regarding the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes' prices charged in Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Head: Some items, notably chocolate and sweets, are dear in Cyprus because of freight charges and a 40 per cent. import duty. Service men stationed there receive a local overseas allowance to compensate for these higher prices.

Troops, Cyprus

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of men drafted to the 1st Battalion Highland Light Infantry, 1st Battalion Wiltshire Regiment,

1st Battalion Royal Warwickshire Regiment, 1st Battalion Parachute Regiment and the 3rd Battalion Parachute Regiment. to bring each battalion to full strength before proceeding to Cyprus.

Mr. Head: None, Sir.

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War the percentage of National Service men serving in the 1st Battalion Highland Light Infantry, 1st Battalion Wiltshire Regiment, 1st Battalion Royal Warwickshire Regiment, 1st Battalion Parachute Regiment, and the 3rd Battalion Parachute Regiment when these battalions proceeded to Cyprus; and what was the percentage of warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the 1st Battalion and 3rd Battalion of the Parachute Regiments qualified as jumpers.

Mr. Head: The percentage of National Service men in these battalions was 46, 63, 60, 17 and 16 respectively. About 97 per cent. of the other ranks in each of the parachute battalions are qualified jumpers.

Mr. Nicholson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Wigg—Question No. 29.

Mr. Nicholson: Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Nicholson.

Mr. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that aspersions were cast the other day on the reputation of two of the regiments mentioned in this Question, and will he please take the first opportunity which presents itself to state that those aspersions are without foundation?

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order that the rules of the House may have some semblance of fairness, may I point out that you had called Question No. 29?

Mr. Speaker: I called Question No. 29 because I did not observe the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) rise to ask a supplementary question. When he did ask it, I did not hear him, so I will now call Question No. 29.

Mr. Nicholson: With respect, Mr. Speaker, you did call my name distinctly.

Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member to ask his supplementary question, but I did not hear it. We had better pass on to Question No. 29.

Mr. Head: I might say, in answer to my hon. Friend, that I think the reputation of these regiments will stand comparison—

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. [Interruption.]Hon. Gentlemen can shout as much as they like. Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to keep to the rules of the House —you called Question No. 29.

Captain Pilkington: Further to that point of order. Surely the Minister has the right to answer my hon. Friend.

Mr. Speaker: I could not hear the supplementary question, so I did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was going to answer it or not.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Farnham was asking a question about the reputation of one of the regiments concerned—[HON. MEMBERS: "Two."]—but as there is nothing in the Question relating to the reputation or character of title regiment, was not that supplementary question completely irrelevant?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know. I did not hear enough of it to gather the point. Mr. Wigg—Question No. 29.

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War the periods the 1st Battalion Highland Light Infantry, 1st Battalion Wiltshire Regiment and the 1st and 3rd Battalions Parachute Regiment served in the United Kingdom before proceeding to Cyprus; and whether he will take a statement.

Mr. Head: Fourteen months, two years and three months, 19 months and 18 months respectively.

Mr. Nicholson: May I ask the same supplementary question as I previously asked, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member for Farnham please repeat his supplementary question?

Mr. Nicholson: Is not the Minister aware that a few days ago aspersions were cast on the reputation of two of the regiments mentioned in this Question?

Will he please take the first opportunity that presents itself to state that these aspersions are without foundation?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I really do not see how that supplementary question arises out of this Question. It is not right that aspersions should be made but, on the other hand, we must have some regard to the Question which is before the House.

An Hon. Member: What is the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) afraid of?

Mr. Wigg: I only want the House to keep to its own rules of order; that is all.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War his estimate of the weekly cost of keeping British soldiers in Cyprus.

Mr. Head: About £200,000.

Mr. Hughes: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer is calling for economy, is not this an enormous expenditure of public money?

Mr. Head: If the hon. Member's suggestions about our general policy were carried to their full consequence, I think that he would find he would have very little freedom in which to ask supplementary questions.

Overseas Theatres (National Service Men)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for War how many National Service men have been wounded and killed in Korea, Malaya, Kenya and Cyprus, respectively, from the beginning of hostilities or armed violence in those territories until the present.

Mr. Head: The total numbers of killed and wounded are, respectively, Korea 280 and 1,056, Malaya (since November, 1949, when separate figures for National Service men were first kept) 103 and 184, Kenya 11 and 9 and Cyprus 3 and 30.

Mr. Zilliacus: Would not the Minister replace these men with professional troops on two grounds: first, that militarily raw levies are not the proper units to perform such duties, which should be performed by highly-trained, seasoned troops; secondly, that as a matter of principle


it is an abuse of the power of the State over the individual to compel men to kill or be killed for politically-controversial purposes which have little or nothing to do with the defence of their country?

Mr. Head: This matter has been gone into in great detail by the House in the past. I think that the National Service element of the Army would much resent being called raw levies because they are, in fact, trained soldiers.

Strategic Reserve

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War what effect the transfer of troops to Cyprus has had on the strategic reserve in this country.

Mr. Head: It has been reduced by the number of troops transferred to Cyprus.

Mr. Bellenger: Can the Minister tell the House of what the strategic reserve in this country now consists?

Mr. Head: The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that it has never been the practice to give precise figures, which act as a most useful check-up for Intelligence services.

Mr. Bellenger: The right hon. Gentleman generally gives some information about the disposition of our troops in various commands. In his Estimates a couple of years ago he gave very detailed information. Can he not say what the strategic reserve in this country is or what he is aiming at?

Mr. Head: In last year's Estimates I stated most plainly what we were aiming at, but to give precise details at present of what we have in this country would, I think, be of great interest to other people.

National Service Men (Communications to Members)

Mr. C. Howell: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a National Service man has been told that he is likely to encounter trouble if he communicates with his Member of Parliament without the permission of his commanding officer; and if he will explain what trouble this man is likely to encounter in such a case, and why.

Mr. Head: No, Sir. None, Sir.

Mr. Howell: Would the Minister agree that both in this House and outside there is considerable apprehension as to troops being used as nursemaids, housemaids, flunkeys and the like, and that it is only by members of Her Majesty's Forces writing to their Members of Parliament that these things come to light? Will he inform commanding officers and adjutants that these men have a right to approach their Members, just as has any other citizen?

Mr. Head: That has already been done on a special occasion, and I have always stated in this House that I would never in any way put anything between a soldier and his right to write to an hon. Member. Judging from my correspondence, they make full use of that privilege.

Cyprus (National Service Men)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War how many National Service men are now in Cyprus.

Mr. Head: About 7,800.

Mr. Hughes: Could the Minister give an Estimate of how many of these National Service men would be in Cyprus if only volunteers were taken?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War how many men of the Highland Light Infantry ordered to Cyprus are National Service men with less than six months' service.

Mr. Head: Seventy-four. None had less than eighteen weeks' service.

Mr. Hughes: Would the Minister tell us what action he has taken to prevent officers in various Scottish regiments from exercising what he has called "blackmail" of soldiers—that is, for soldiers to be lined up and told that if they sign on as Regulars they will not go to Cyprus? Is he aware that I have here a Scottish newspaper from which I see that troops in three different regiments have been told this? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking either to give a directive to the officers or to court-martial those who are abusing their powers?

Mr. Head: We have said in the past, I think twice since I have been in my present office, that that form of recruiting is wrong. If the hon. Member will give me particulars I will look into them, because I am against such methods.

Mr. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend say whether there is any justification at all for the aspersions cast last week upon the regiments mentioned in the Question?

Mr. Beswick: Can the Secretary of State for War say whether there was any justification, either, for telling those men that there was no more danger in any operations going on in Cyprus than in crossing the Great West Road?

Mr. Head: I should like to say to the House that that remark was made in connection with non-operational boys, families and women. I see now that it could easily be interpreted as referring to soldiers, as indeed it has been interpreted by some. I think that if the hon. Member looks at HANSARD he will see my meaning, but in so far as it has been interpreted as referring to soldiers, which was neither meant nor said, I should like to emphasise that it would be far from me, sitting in the safety of Whitehall, to cast aspersions or to belittle the risks which the soldiers are taking.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I say how much we appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's remarks and the withdrawal of at any rate an implication of his statement the other day which I think would have done a great deal of harm?

Mr. Head: Although this is not normal in Question and Answer, may I say that I had not then read the HANSARD report of my remarks—that was not possible—and when I read it later I saw that there was the possibility of misinterpretation. I should also like to say that I think I was unduly heated with the right hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Indian and Pakistan Fairs (British Participation)

Mr. Smithers: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that British industry was adequately represented at the Indian Industries Fair and at the Pakistan International Fair; and whether he will review the existing policy with regard to such matters in the light of special conditions existing in Asia.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. A. R. W. Low): We are now considering whether any special action should

be taken for future fairs in this area in view of the special conditions to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Smithers: I am much obliged.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the Minister aware that we have been urging this action upon him for some time? Will he not expedite the decision? Is he aware that British trade is suffering because of lack of policy on trade fairs generally?

Mr. Low: It is a fact that my right hon. Friend and I have answered Questions on this subject frequently.

Strawberry Pulp (Import Licences)

Sir F. Medlicort: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the concern felt by fruit growers and merchants in this country resulting from the issue of import licences to the value of £98,000 for strawberry pulp from Poland at a time when merchants in this country have on hand considerable stocks of home-produced pulp; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Low: Yes, Sir. Licences for these imports were issued to avoid a possible shortage of pulp for jam making. Home supplies of strawberries for jam, most of which were sold to manufacturers some time ago, were good in 1955 but imports of strawberry pulp, on which we have always relied to supplement home production, are likely this season to be less than average. Home supplies of other soft fruit were short.

Sir F. Medlicort: Is the Minister satisfied that there is sufficiently close and continuous consultation between his Department and the representatives of the merchants and fruit growers in this country to avoid these misunderstandings?

Mr. Low: We are, of course, closely in touch with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Danish Bacon (Imports)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether ho will make a statement on the recent negotiations of representatives of Her Majesty's Government with regard to future supplies of Danish bacon to this country.

Mr. Low: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey).

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Leader of the House, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that he much preferred subsidies to tariffs as a way of helping the farmers, and since this proposed tariff would add about £6 million to the cost of living, does he not realise that it will be a direct incitement to the trade unions to go on pressing their wage claims?

Mr. Low: I still have nothing to add to the answer which I gave yesterday.

Mr. Wade: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the interests of the consumer while these negotiations are in progress? May we have an assurance that supplies of Danish bacon will not be limited merely on the ground that bacon can be produced more economically in Denmark?

Mr. Low: We always keep in mind the interests of all people concerned in these matters.

Mr. Jay: Is this tariff proposal the beginning of a new policy of putting taxes on food?

Mr. Low: I still have nothing to add to the statement I made yesterday.

North-East Lancashire

41 and 42. Mr. Burke: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what conclusions have been reached regarding the need for further diversification of industry in the North-East Lancashire Development Area as a result of the visit of his Parliamentary Secretary to that area;
(2) if he is aware of the continuous drift of population away from north-east Lancashire; and what steps he is taking to prevent this in addition to the one factory which has been established in the Clitheroe division.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I am aware that there has been some migration from north-east Lancashire, though I understand that in the two years after the area was scheduled in 1953 the estimated population remained almost unchanged.
The Board of Trade has built in this Development Area the largest factory which it has ever built in a Development Area. It has also brought the attractions of the area to the attention of industrialists, a number of whom have received Industrial Development Certificates for factory building. The Board of Trade is continuing its efforts.
Some further diversification is, in our view, desirable.

Mr. Burke: Does the Minister realise that in the three years 1952–55 the insured population of Burnley alone fell by 3,500, 8 per cent. of the insured population? Does he not regard that as very serious and as demanding something more than one factory, which is not in production after three years?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The Question related to the North-East Lancashire Development Area as a whole. In respect of that area, as I indicated in my Answer, the fall in population was almost arrested from 1953 to 1955.

Mr. H. Wilson: While action, or lack of action, in this area has been particularly disappointing, will the hon. and learned Gentleman, following his visit to a number of Development Areas since his appointment, give an assurance that the Board of Trades does not contemplate any change in the general policy towards Development Areas?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I must dissociate myself from the implication in the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, because there has been considerable progress in this Development Area since it was scheduled in 1953. I assume that in the second part of the supplementary question the right hon. Gentleman refers to the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, which is naturally being studied in the Board of Trade.

Mr. Fort: In order to remove the misapprehensions of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), will my hon. and learned Friend give the House lists of the factories in Padiham and elsewhere to which Development Certificates have been issued under the Development Order?

Mr. Burke: Will the House realise that only one factory has been brought there by Government initiative?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The factory referred to in the question of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) is the large Mullard factory. To reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort), 16 industrial building schemes of over 5,000 square feet have been approved since the scheduling of the area, totalling 1,400,000 square feet of factory space.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House, in regard to Development Certificates in respect of other factories than Mullard's, what proportion of them is in respect of non-textile factories? Will he confirm that the only Government money which has been spent in this area since the Order was made is in the single factory to which my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) referred?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The only Government-financed factory is the Mullard factory, which, as I have said, is the largest Government factor)' built in any Development Area. Replying to the first part of the supplementary question, I could not give a precise figure without notice, but my impression is that the whole or virtually the whole of the figure which I gave in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe is for non-textile factories.

Mr. H. Wilson: While the figures given by the hon. and learned Gentleman are a great tribute to the local authorities in the area and not to the Board of Trade, would the hon. and learned Gentleman enlighten his hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) by pointing out to him that the certificates in question are not granted under the Industrial Development Order, but under Section 14 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in saying that Industrial Development Certificates are granted under Section 14 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act, but they are certificates of the Board of Trade and therefore are not solely the action of the local authorities. Many of these factories were steered to that area by the Board of Trade.

Spanish Goods (Exports to Gibraltar)

Mr. Peyton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what mention was made of Gibraltar during the recent Anglo-Spanish trade talks.

Mr. Low: The attention of the Spanish delegation was drawn during the talks to the question of permits for the export of Spanish fruit to Gibraltar. They stated that no such permits had been refused or delayed in 1955 and that their authorities would continue to facilitate the export of Spanish goods to all dependent overseas territories of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Peyton: Does my hon. Friend realise that the information given by the Spanish officials does not coincide with the information reaching this country from Gibraltar? Does he realise that there is increasing disappointment and discontent in Gibraltar at the continued obstinacy of the Spanish Government in restricting quite unreasonably trade and travel? Does he not think the time has come when the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards Spanish trade should be modified, in view of the attitude of the Spanish Government?

Mr. Low: On the question of fruit, if my hon. Friend has any information contrary to what I have said, I hope he will give it to me. I had made inquiries prior to my statement. Questions of travel have been taken up in the past and are best taken up through diplomatic channels, and that is a matter for the Foreign Secretary.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Purchase Tax (Pottery)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the light of the harmful effects already experienced in the pottery industry, he will now remove the Purchase Tax on pottery.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Harold Macmillan): No, Sir.

Mr. Swingler: Whilst appreciating that the Chancellor has had very little time to study many new problems, may I ask him if he is aware that when he does study the results of this ruinous tax he will find that there have been no extra exports but merely short-time working in


the pottery industry? Will he give an assurance that when he discovers the errors of the ways of his predecessor he will have no hesitation in coming to the House to see that this tax shall be speedily removed?

Mr. Macmillan: My predecessor wrote to the Pottery Manufacturers' Federation —I think he sent a copy of his letter to the hon. Member—saying that he would watch developments in that industry, but I must be frank and say that I think nothing could do more harm than to leave doubt in this matter.

Sterling (Exchange Value)

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any statement to make about his intentions regarding the maintenance of the exchange value of sterling.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) on Thursday, 26th January, 1956.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of financial journals and financial opinion generally have been waiting for him to repeat from his own lips the statement made by his predecessor at Istanbul on 12th September last? Is he further aware that whatever differences there may be in the House about steps necessary to achieve that object—and there are very big differences —all parties in the House are determined that necessary steps shall be taken to keep sterling strong?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving me a further opportunity. It may perhaps be useful to repeat the actual words of my right hon. Friend. He said that it
has been and will continue to be the maintenance of exchange parity of 2·80 dollars to the £ either in existing circumstances or when sterling is convertible.
He added:
In the long run this must depend on our efforts and nothing else can replace these.

Entertainments Duty (Cinemas)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state the receipts from entertainments tax on cinemas in each of the first three quarters of the current financial year; and how these figures

compare with the amounts for the same quarters of 1954–55, showing the percentage rise or fall in each case.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Swingler: Whilst thanking the Chancellor for that reply, -may I ask if he will say if in his opinion those figures indicate a strong case for the reduction of taxation on the most heavily taxed form of entertainment, particularly in view of the increasing number of bankruptcies of small cinema proprietors?

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Member and others will draw their conclusions'from the figures when they read the table. As they are running at somewhere about 95 per cent. or 96 per cent, of those of the previous year, I should have thought that the conclusion drawn by the hon. Member was rather too sweeping.

Following are the figures:


Quarter
Entertainments duty receipts from cinemas in the financial year
Receipts in 1955-56 as percentage of 1954-55


1954–55
1955–56



£ million
£ million



1st April-30th June.
9·36*
8·77
94


1st July-30th Sept.
9·01
8·40
93


1st October-31st Dec.
8·44
8·07
96


* Rates of duty on cinema admissions were reduced on 30th May, 1954. Most of the duty received in this quarter was at the higher rates in force before that date.

United States Films (Dollar Expenditure)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much dollar expenditure has been incurred on the import of United States films for use on television in the last six months.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I regret that the figures are not available.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the Chancellor aware that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. are showing many rubbishy American films, and that it is a complete waste of money? Will he make it his business to find how


many dollars are being spent in this way when obviously we need them for more important purposes?.

Mr. Macmillan: I am sorry to say that I have not got the figures, but if and when I can obtain them I will see that they are communicated to the hon. Member and to the House.

Inflation

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his plans for dealing with inflation.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give details of his plan to reduce the cost of living generally; and whether he will arrange to have this plan published in HANSARD.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I would refer both hon. Members to the reply on this subject which I gave to the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) on 24th January.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the reported statement, attributed to him on taking over his new office, that "There ain't going to be no inflation"?

Mr. Macmillan: I read all the newspapers very carefully, and I did observe this humorous statement which was put into my mouth. I am grateful to the hon. Member for recalling it.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Does not inflation bear directly upon the cost of living, and has not the cost of living risen far less in the last three years than it did the last single year of office of the Socialist Government, when the concrete-skulled Lobby fodder opposite were in power and brought this country to the verge of national bankruptcy?

Mr. Macmillan: As usual, my hon. and gallant Friend's statistics are perfectly correct.

Mr. Wilson: While we all hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be more factual, objective and accurate in his pronouncements from the Box than he has just been with that Answer, will he tell us whether he has now studied the effects of his predecessor's efforts—or failure—to deal with inflation over the last four years, and in particular the inflationary effect of the supplementary

Budget? Has the Chancellor no further proposals to put before us than a continuation of the disastrous policy followed by his predecessor?

Mr. Macmillan: I must not anticipate my Budget statement.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS)

Captain Pilkington: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the nationalised industries are owned by the nation, he will take steps to alter the present practice so as to enable Members of Parliament to ask Questions about these industries in the same way that they can about non-nationalised industries.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend is aware of the desire of hon. Members to have full information about the nationalised industries. How this might best be achieved is now under fresh consideration by the Government, following the recent Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries.

Captain Pilkington: In view of the fact that these industries—some of the most important, such as coal and transport—are doing extremely badly under nationalisation, will my right hon. Friend undertake that this reconsideration will be pressed forward with all speed?

Mr. Butler: This was, perhaps naturally, one of the first subjects to which I gave my attention on assuming my present responsibilities. It is a matter which interests the House of Commons as a whole, and when I have had time to form a conclusion—with the aid, perhaps, of hon. Members interested in this matter —I hope that we shall find a solution that is satisfactory to the House as a whole.

Mr. Jay: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how we are to put down Questions in this House on the non-nationalised industries, and to which Ministers such Questions should be addressed?

Mr. Butler: The Questions of the right hon. Member, as I learned to discover during four happy years of opposition to him, are full of tortuous ideas. In general, the private sector is within the field of


responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade, but the specific answer to the right hon. Member is that there is no exact parallel between the private interests to which he referred and nationalised industries which are under consideration.

Mr. Gaitskell: The Leader of the House has made a most important pronouncement. Are we to understand that from now onwards we may address Questions to the President of the Board of Trade about I.C.I., Unilever and any other private firms in which hon. Members happen to be interested?

Mr. Butler: If the right hon. Member had listened to the concluding portion of my reply he would have heard me say that there was no parallel between the statement made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and nationalised industries, to which hon. Members are drawing my attention in this Question.

Mr. Gaitskell: In that case, would it not be much better if the right hon. Gentleman would say that of course Ministers cannot and do not answer Questions about non-nationalised industries?

Mr. Butler: No, because it would be a great pity for the Leader of the House ot to answer the first part of the question by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, namely, that if there is a field in which private industries lie it falls within the general purview of the

Board of Trade. I then answered specifically the point of the question about private industry.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Reverting to the nationalised industries, and pending the fresh consideration to be given the subject, of which I am sure all parties in the House will approve, would my right hon. Friend agree that as a result of the last Report of the Select Committee, and particularly of the evidence incorporated in it, there is abundant proof that nearly all the subjects upon which hon. Members would normally desire to ask Questions are in fact—as shown by the Select Committee—subjects over which Ministers have full power of investigation and inquiry? That being the case, does that not automatically give admissibility to these Questions?

Mr. Butler: I have in my hand the Report of the Select Committee. Certainly there are some very imposing tables in it which were submitted in evidence, but I think it would be an over-simplification to take the definition given by the noble Lord on this occasion. It would be very much better if we took a little more time before coming to a conclusion.

Captain Pilkington: On a point of order. In view of the question whether or not it is in order to ask Questions about private enterprise, would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, to refer to the previous Question, No. 44, which was about articles produced by private enterprise?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING SUBSIDIES BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 25th January]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(INTRODUCTION OF NEW HOUSING SUBSIDIES.)

3.33 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, at the end to insert:
(other than the new dwellings mentioned in subsection (15) of this section)

The Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss at the same time the following Amendment, in line 8, and the second and third Amendments in page 1155 of the Notice Paper.

Mr. MacColl: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee to follow your advice, Sir Charles, and to discuss the Amendments together, but I propose to confine my attention to the Amendment I have moved and the first of the two Amendments in page 2, line 20, in the names of some of my hon. Friends and myself, which gives a detailed account of what the Amendment is about. The other group of Amendments deals with the closely associated problem of areas of extensive war damage. The point with which I want to deal is the more general one of what is commonly known as blighted areas.
The Amendment, although rather technical, is of great importance. In fact, it goes right to the root of the intentions of the Bill. So far, we have been discussing various ways in which we think the scope of the Bill ought to have been widened. It ought to have included houses provided for old people, houses provided for agricultural workers, and so on. The Amendment accepts the assumption behind the Bill that it is concerned broadly with slum clearance and with the attempt to get rid of bad areas of property. It endeavours to persuade the Government to widen the definition of "slum" to be more in line with modern ideas of what is required when getting rid of obsolete property.
When I read the Bill and saw the Government's definition of "slum" in Clause 11, I thought I understood what had happened. I imagined the Minister, with his advisers, trying to compile the Bill and reaching the decision that what they were trying to do was to give a subsidy for slum clearance as defined in the Housing Acts. Then, I imagined the right hon. Gentleman's advisers saying to him, "What do you want to do about town and country planning?" One could understand the reaction of the right hon. Gentleman as being something like saying, "Oh, you mean Silkin and all that. We do not want to have anything to do with it. We do not want anything of that sort." I hope to address my argument to the Minister on that basis.
I have noticed, however, that since the Bill was published the Minister has tabled an official Amendment to Clause 11, which I should not be in order in discussing at this stage, which, so far from extending the definition of "slum," narrows it and puts back the clock 20 years. My arguments, therefore, might have been irrelevant to the right hon. Gentleman's state of mind. He is apparently now so narrow in argument and so lacks any appreciation of what slum clearance is all about that he is actually going in the wrong direction instead of being led gently along in the direction in which I hope to lead him. I should, therefore, like to detain the Committee for a moment or two to indicate the development of the practice of clearing away obsolete areas.
The definition of "slum" in the normal use of the word for an unfit house in a clearance area, which is to be found in the Housing Acts, goes back at least to the Torrens Act of 1868 and is based wholly on the danger or injury to health. The test which has been applied is the very narrow test of whether a medical officer of health can represent a house or group of houses as being dangerous or injurious to health. That test, which is a purely physical test, was found to be inadequate for the purpose as long ago as 1935, and in the Housing Bill, 1935, the definition was extended to cover what was then known as a development area—that is to say, an area of property which was not simply injurious to health but which was overcrowded and which


because of its general arrangement required to be demolished and rebuilt. In the Bill that is the existing definition of a slum.
In the 1944 Town and Country Planning Act, however, which was passed not by the Labour Government but by the Coalition Government, a new conception was introduced. Again, it extended the definition of unfit property, and there became known generally what were termed blighted areas: that is, areas which were not simply dangerous to health or overcrowded, but which, in the words of Section 9 (1) of the 1944 Act, because of
conditions of bad lay-out and obsolete development…should be laid out afresh and re-developed as a whole.
That is the clue to the whole argument.
If we are to tackle the problem of bad housing and bad properties generally, an essential part of the procedure is to lay out an area as a whole and to re-develop it. That conception, which was introduced in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944 and continued in the Labour Government's Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, has been widely adopted by local authorities and has been accepted as part of development plans by planning authorities. It is that which we are seeking to introduce in the Bill.
We do it with considerable support from hon. Members opposite, because there is a further Amendment on the Notice Paper, to Clause 11, page 8, line 32, in the names of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins), the hon. and gallant Member for Rochdale (Lieut.-Colonel Schofield), the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) and the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay), all members of the party opposite. That Amendment is very much on the lines of ours. I certainly hope that later in the debate we shall have their support. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I would hazard a guess that they are so ashamed that they are not proposing to put in an appearance in these discussions. On the whole, next to a formal act of suicide, the most reasonable thing that they can do is to keep out of the Chamber altogether while this really shocking Bill is being carried through.
The people have accepted from the Government the idea that the Bill is to advance slum clearance but, of course, that is a very misleading statement unless we are told what is meant by a slum. When the public talk about slum clearance they do not think of it in terms of any narrow, medical definition but in terms of getting rid of bad property. I found two definitions of slums in the dictionary. The first was:
A street alley court etc. situated in a crowded district of a town or city and inhabited by people of a low class or by the very poor; a number of these streets or courts forming a thickly populated neighbourhood or district of a squalid and wretched character.
In other words, the emphasis is on overcrowding, thick population and on the squalid and wretched character of the whole area. Another definition seems to be more strictly associated with the Government. It is:
Nonsensical talk or writing; gammon, blarney.
However, I do not think that that is probably the one the Government had in mind when they made these proposals.
I can imagine that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who, presumably, will be offered as a lamb to the slaughter, as usual, to make a lame reply to the Amendment, will say that, of course, there is nothing to stop local authorities who want to redevelop and rebuild the whole area from doing so. He will probably say that there is nothing in the Bill to forbid it. That is typical of the kind of arguments which we have had recently from the Parliamentary Secretary.
I have had feelings of considerable sympathy for the hon. Gentleman since he reached the Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman used to make many contributions to our discussions about housing. They were speeches which were hardly impregnated with uncontrolled gaiety but they had a cold, ruthless if rather superficial logic about them. But nobody can accuse the hon. Gentleman of logic since he reached the Front Bench. He has used three quite inconsistent arguments in defence of the Bill.
When anybody says that the trouble about the Bill is that it will cut out any housing activity except his definition of slum clearance, the hon. Gentleman says, "No, because the loss of these subsidies


will not matter at all. It will be spread over pooled rents and the local authorities will hardly notice any change. It will be just what they did before. There is no reason for agricultural workers and old people to get worried at all. "When the hon. Gentleman is called upon to make a great defence of slum clearance he says that the "concentrated object" is slum clearance and that everything else must be thrown aside in order to concentrate. If the Bill works better than has the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, obviously the effect must be to cut down any form of building except slum clearance.
3.45 p.m.
When the hon. Gentleman finds that he is in a corner and neither of these two completely conflicting arguments will meet the case, he prays in aid the discretionary powers of the Minister and says, "You need not worry about the contents of the Bill. The Minister will be able to dole out subsidies at his absolute discretion and it does not matter what is in the Bill." I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intends to employ any of those arguments in meeting the Amendment.
Authorities faced with the problem of redeveloping their towns will be able to act only in the narrow field of unfit property within the meaning of the Housing Act, 1936. They will not be able to take a wider view and carry out decent planning and rebuilding of their areas on a scale which will make a notable improvement in the sphere of their responsibilities. This problem has arisen already in the case of a number of authorities. I would quote two only as an illustration, because they concern two different types of authorities.
One is the case of the East Kilburn development scheme, in Willesden, which was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant) on Second Reading. In that case the specific question was put to the Minister, "Will this kind of work which Willesden Council has been doing in redeveloping rank for subsidy? Will houses provided for rehousing people in that area rank for subsidy?" The Minister made a perfectly categorical and plain statement that it would not rank for subsidy, in so far as he said in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West that the

authority must deal with the houses under the Housing Act,
…either as a redevelopment area or as a piece of slum clearance.
But from what I gather of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions, if his Amendment is to be taken seriously, that letter is misleading, because he is to cut out redevelopment from subsidy and contribute it only to slum clearance. That is an illustration of a particular practical problem of a certain local authority.
There is another case in the City of Coventry, where there are two schemes. In the one case the area is primarily a housing scheme mainly consisting of overcrowded and unfit property. In that case, as the Bill stands, it is possible to clear the people from the area and collect a subsidy. In the other case it will not be possible, because the other area is one which will be treated under the Town and Country Planning Acts and not under the Housing Acts. I am not sure whether even in the first case, if the Minister has his way, when the Bill is passed it will be possible to secure a subsidy.
This is not vague, frothy talk. These are actual cases where local authorities, faced with the problem of a terrible inheritance of bad, obsolete property, want to rebuild the area as a whole—?because the whole emphasis of redevelopment in terms of town and country planning is comprehensive development of the area as a whole. In other words, it is not piecemeal development where one knocks down a few houses and rebuilds them. It is a case of taking the whole area and planning and rebulding it.
Quite recently there was a very interesting illustration of this in a newspaper dealing with New York where a whole area is being taken over, bad property is being demolished and a university campus is being built. An opera house is to be built together with housing development. That kind of comprehensive, balanced development, which people who take a pride in their city want to do, is to be completely killed by this Bill. The emphasis all the time is to be on little isolated blocks of unfit property, knocking that down, rehousing the people on the periphery and leaving the area because there will not be sufficient financial support for redevelopment.
Contradictory things can and do happen. In London, where the land is extremely expensive, people are not anxious to leave sites, however small and undeveloped. We see all over London, in areas too small to be workable units, a few houses which have been knocked down and replaced by blocks of flats to rehouse the people so that the land may be used in thoroughly bad places, often sandwiched between the main road and the railway, and the people rehoused find themselves even in new flats in areas which are not really suitable for housing development.
In places where land is fairly cheap we gat the opposite. There we get failure to use the land at all because the area is so small that it is not worth building upon. I imagine that the unhappy story of what happens is within the experience of hon. Members as it is within my experience in my own constituency. The local authority, with the best will in the world, will order the demolition of two or three unfit houses. That is all it can do because the rest of the area does not come within the powers of the medical officer. These houses are knocked down and there is a ghastly mess of brick and rubble lying about, creating a resting place for dead cats and tin cans, while a long argument goes on between the council and the owner about the clearing away of the rubble. Sometimes there are threats of legal proceedings, which go on for several months. What is left is a vacant site. Houses which are rapidly deteriorating are often a potential source of trouble and financial wastage.
These are two evils which can and should be avoided if there is proper redevelopment. The Minister ought to bring pressure on the local authorities so that when they look at an area they always have in mind the thought of what is to happen if they demolish houses and what is to be created in their place.
Housing and town planning are creative, not things purely of demolition. The whole point is that we are trying to build better-looking cities, and the emphasis of the Government in this Bill is to encourage the local authorities to tackle only sites where they are to get subsidies to rehouse the people. Therefore, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to look at this problem, not just from the point of view of saving a little money, but from the

point of view of encouraging a really creative attitude towards the housing sites and the overcrowded, derelict and badly-planned urban centres of many of our towns.
I should have thought that one could have expected the Government to be sympathetic to that sort of thing. I am quite prepared to believe that they are not likely to be very sympathetic to the appeals made for the old people. They are not likely to be sympathetic to the appeals made for agricultural workers. But even the Fascists believed in planning their cities and I should have thought that one could have at least expected the Government to take some pride in wanting to see new towns and new centres of our towns grow up.
I cannot understand the motive behind this proposal. It will not make a tremendous difference in terms of cost. It will leave with the local authorities the difficulty of deciding which of the Acts of Parliament on the Statute Book they should use—not new Acts of Parliament. The powers are there. They have grown up in the course of history, starting with the demolition of the single house, the clearance area and the development area. Stage by stage these powers have developed because the practical experience of the people doing the job was that they were necessary. Why now try to put the clock back?
The hon. Member for Dulwich has wide experience of local government. I know of his practical acquaintanceship with this problem and of his connection with a very powerful local authority association. From all those points of view I am convinced that he meant business when he tabled the Amendment standing in his name, the effect of which is precisely the same as mine, except that mine is probably in order and I very much doubt whether his is in order. There is some virtue in making one's protest effective, and not merely impressive on paper. Therefore, I am claiming a little credit for the Amendment standing in my name, and in being able to bring this matter before the Committee.
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that a moral obligation lies on him to make an approach to all local authorities which have imagination and ideas of how to recreate their cities. People who really care for a creative approach to redevelopment


want to see areas developed as a whole and not piecemeal. It is that kind of spirit, whether Conservative or Socialist, that we want. The Government in their unimaginative, cheeseparing, narrow attitude, are breaking people's hearts, disillusioning them and making them feel that there is no future in the work which they are trying to do.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Although I rise to support the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), I do so with the most forlorn hope. What we are asking this afternoon is that the Minister will allow a little imaginative improvement to what is a thoroughly bad Bill. I cannot share any hope, judging the right hon. Gentleman by his previous form in debates on this disgraceful piece of legislation, that we can expect anything useful or helpful from him.
It may be that he is right. It may be that this is such a bad piece of legislation that there is nothing to be done with it but to hurry it through as quickly as possible. I think that his hon. Friends must agree with him. There are just about eleven hon. Members opposite of whom six are in some way or another connected with the Government. That leaves five passionately interested in the problem of the housing of the people of this country. I think that is a measure of the contempt in which not only hon. Members opposite but many people in this country hold this Bill.
We have put down this Amendment for two reasons. There are two main categories of housing which we feel are particularly badly treated by the Bill. I want for a moment to concentrate on the blitzed areas to which the Minister seems so strangely unsympathetic at the present time. Frankly, I cannot understand his lack of sympathy, particularly towards areas in London and other big cities which took the full blast of the war. Accordingly, I should have thought it would not have been beyond the sympathies of the right hon. Gentleman to try to help in the rebuilding of those areas which have suffered so much from the vicissitudes of the war. Yet I cannot find anywhere in the Bill, or in anything which the right hon. Gentleman has said, any intention on the part of the Government to try to help local authorities

which are still burdened by the problem of making good the damage from bombardment.
4.0 p.m.
I know it is tedious constantly to use local examples, and so, for example, I will give the figures for only one district of London, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the problem seriously. When we know that in a small borough such as Holborn 650 homes were completely destroyed in the blitz, that since the war ended only 300 have been rebuilt, and that as a result of this Bill subsequent building to catch up with that war damage will not qualify for the highest rate of subsidy, we are entitled to ask from what source a local authority in the position of that of Holborn is to make up the money it will lose on that subsidy.
The right hon. Gentleman may dismiss the entire problem quickly by saying that this is a subject for the rates. In that case he is saying that the local authority which has already suffered most from the war must now, out of the pockets of its own ratepayers, make good what was a national disaster. Yet it was no fault of the people in one district that more of their homes were destroyed than the homes of other people anywhere else. I should have thought that would have been a reason for the Government to have poured help into such a district. I have looked carefully through the Bill, as have my hon. Friends, and I can conclude only that the Minister is completely unmoved and unconcerned, and is tossing back to the local authority the responsibility for clearing up the havoc and damage of the bombardment of the war years.
I should have thought that one of the few Amendments which might have been acceptable even to the Minister would have been one to allow the full rate of subsidy up to the number of homes that were destroyed in the blitz. It is very little to ask that a local authority should continue to receive the full rale of subsidy until it has at least overtaken its war damage. In the case of authorities which have been able to get on quickly, no doubt the previous procedure is all right, but for local authorities which have not been able as yet to complete a programme equivalent to the number of houses destroyed, it is a small thing to ask. I am not making a party point This is a


national concern, for which there should have been a sympathetic response from the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that at least he will consider this Amendment favourably.
The other main category which we find is being neglected, and which we feel sure will cause much hardship, has been referred to as that of the "blighted areas," the near-slums which all of us in the big cities know so well. Under the present definition of a slum the qualifications which have to be fulfilled before a property can be formally represented as a slum are so strict, so narrow, that there are large numbers of dwellings which do not so qualify, although in human terminology they are slums and should be written off as slums.
Every local authority, particularly in the big cities, has a large number of such properties, which were not slums originally. Many of them were not bad buildings once upon a time, but because of multiple occupation, and the lack in them of facilities for the many families now living in them, many, perhaps, in a single building, they have been reduced to slums. I submit seriously to the right hon. Gentleman that the definition of a slum should not be narrowed to the material and architectural faults of a dwelling. What are the things that make a slum? There are all sorts of circumstances which so impinge on the lives of the human beings in such houses that they make a slum of their lives, whatever the medical officer of health says about the building in which they live.
I wonder whether hon. Gentlemen opposite have often been into the kind of houses of which I am speaking? In them a family lives in one room, washing drying above the heads of the family as they try to eat their supper, coal in a box next to the table off which they are eating, children having to move their homework off the only table because their mother wants to do the ironing. A woman living in such circumstances has to take her children out for a walk on a snowy day like today so that the husband who is on night duty can get some quiet in order to sleep. Then there is the misery of shared lavatories, of the shared tap on the landing, the shared sink, the one gas cooker in the house which many women must share. These

are the everyday realities of life which build up a slum existence for families who live in those overcrowded conditions, whatever the officials of the Minister describe as a slum.
That is the biggest problem now for local authorities. What can we do for these people, many of whom come to us sick, disabled? They bring their hopeless, pathetic medical certificates which we can only pass on. Many of them are ex-Service men who are often the most bitter of all. People living in basements with rising damp come to us with their complaints. We can take their addresses, contact the medical officer of health but, time after time, we find that these dwellings are not represented as slums.
For instance, in Holborn only 36 dwellings have been represented as slums to the Minister within the present definition. I have been in touch with the right hon. Gentleman and with our medical officer of health about tenement blocks where there are living conditions which would have been a disgrace to this country 100 years ago. Yet I find that for some technicality they are just outside the definition, and for our next five year programme we can get only thirty-six dwellings considered within the terms of this Bill. Unless the Minister is prepared to be helpful on this Amendment, any other building which this councils wants to undertake to assist people living in what to any fair-minded person are disgraceful and slum conditions, will become a burden entirely for the rates—a matter which does not interest the right hon. Gentleman.
If we look a little further afield we find that the London County Council, with 165,000 families on its waiting list, of whom 50,000 are in the highest category of urgency, has a slum clearance programme for the next five years of only 18,500. What about the rest? The 50,000 families in the A category of urgency are not there on frivolous grounds. Anyone who deals day by day with these cases knows that to get into category A with the L.C.C. there has to be such a total combination of circumstances of misery that one often wonders how people can exist.
Of the 50,000 London families in A category, 18,000 will, we hope, be helped by the slum clearance proposals, but for


the rest, apart from any possible consideration of the Amendment, the Minister seems to be shrugging his shoulders and throwing the problem back to the local authorities. That is very unfair not only to the thousands of families which have to live in miserable and disgraceful conditions but to the local authorities. The local authorities which comprise a majority of people who are interested in these things and have some social conscience will spend the most money and make the greatest effort.
However, for the local authority whose main preoccupation is to keep down the rates and who does not show great interest in the welfare of its people, the Minister is providing a wonderful alibi. We have already read reports in the Press about local authorities who have said that they will not continue council house building. If the financing of council house building is to be left entirely to local authorities, the Minister will be putting such irresponsible authorities in a position where they can justifiably take that stand.
By the terms of the Bill, the local authority which wants to take a broad and hopeful view of its responsibilities, which will want to clear not only the tiny proportion of slums which passes through the very fine sieve of the present definition, but will want to clear its near-slums and build worthy homes for people living in difficult and overcrowded conditions, will get no help from the Minister.
It is because we feel that there are local authorities, in areas where there was a great deal of war-damage, which, out of considerations of ordinary humanity and decency, want in their rebuilding programmes to go further than deal merely with the actual slums, that my hon. Friends and I have put forward our Amendment. It is all too little to ask, but it provides at least some small opportunity in the midst of a thoroughly bad Bill to encourage local authorities to do a little towards the re-housing of people in their areas in a worthy and dignified way.
Without the Amendment, the Bill is a naked example of the Tory attitude towards the housing of our people. I cannot think why my hon. Friends and I are trying to help hon. Gentlemen opposite, but for the sake of the people who will be suffering as a result of the Bill, we felt that our Amendment should receive the serious consideration of the

Minister and his hon. Friends. I very much hope that such consideration will be given to the Amendment, for it provides an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to show that he is not completely indifferent to the fate of people whose homes were bombed and who are living in circumstances which are a disgrace to the country.

4.15 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: I support the plea that the Minister should maintain subsidies in respect of blitzed towns. While the Opposition is fundamentally opposed to the Bill, I would appeal to the Minister in a non-party way and plead the case of the blitzed towns as, incidentally, I did in my maiden speech in the House six years ago, for I believe their special case to be unanswerable and irresistible.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger), I am a little encouraged by the sympathy which the Minister showed late last year when he promised to look into the question of prefabricated houses. If I speak particularly about Southampton today, all that I have to say goes for Plymouth, Coventry, Liverpool, Hull, West Ham, many other London boroughs, and, indeed, the City of London itself.
Our general case is simply that on every aspect of post-war development the blitzed city starts not from scratch, but under a handicap. Because of lost rates due to the destruction of factories and houses, and the damage done to local economic life, the blitzed towns are behind the rest of the country in dealing with their problems. It is double burden of the rate finance of a blitzed city and the housing programme of a blitzed city which the Amendment seeks to alleviate.
I will illustrate this with reference to Southampton's figures. Southampton thinks itself to be a good housing authority. It built 4,700 council houses before the war, but in the blitz it lost 4,795 houses totally destroyed. Nearly every other house in Southampton was damaged and thousands of them were so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) will remember, Southampton's first job was to do first-aid work to the seriously damaged uninhabitable houses.
For Southampton, the blitz wiped out more than twenty years of housing achievements in the inter-war years. It is true that it was not actually the council houses which were blitzed, for they are usually on the perimeter of a town; it was the houses in the centre of the town which were damaged and destroyed. We lost nearly 5,000 houses, and we lost their rateable value, just as we lost the rateable value of shops and factories to the tune of more than £100,000 per year.
Our first job after the war was to fill the gap in houses which had been caused by the enemy. We think that we have done a good job of post-war re-construction in our blitzed city. First, with the help of the Government, we built 1,750 prefabs, and subsequently we have built 6,568 houses and flats, being council dwellings and private enterprise dwellings. This achievement would make Southampton compare favourably with other authorities in the post-war housing of its citizens if it had not been for the blitz. But the first 4,700 houses which were erected in Southampton merely filled the holes that Hitler had made.
Instead of today being about 8,000 housing units—I dislike that expression—better off than in 1945, we are about 4,000 units better off, and of that number 1,700 are "prefabs" and "prefabs" have a short life. Incidentally, the prefabricated dwellings have done much better than anybody in the country anticipated. They have stood up to wear and tear beyond our dreams. However, in the long run, and possibly not so many years ahead of us, every blitzed city with prefabricated houses will find their replacement a liability. Actually, Southampton is only about 2,000 permanent houses better off after ten years of keen and gigantic effort. That has meant a persistence of the grave housing shortage in Southampton.
During our various debates, many hon. Members have commented upon the number of people in housing trouble still approaching them. If that is true of normal constituencies, it is even more true of a blitzed city. My own experience —that of every hon. Member representing every blitzed city—has been that three out of four people who come to my "surgery" every week are people in housing difficulties. I hope that the day

will come when the person who comes to "surgery" with a housing problem is coming merely because of discomfort, merely because of minor hardship. But the kind of case with which I have to grapple week-end after week-end is that of people living in a couple of rooms, or people who, for years and years, have lived with their in-laws. A young married couple in Southampton have practically no hope of getting a council house and I wish sometimes that the country would realise the tragedy of any two families having to live under one roof. Many of the people who come to me week-end after week-end have been on the waiting list in Southampton for years. The official figures for Southampton are that we have an active waiting list of 4,500 and what is called a deferred waiting list of about 3,250—and all this apart from our proposed slum clearance of 3,760 houses.
No blitzed city can let its housing programme dry up. If the general purpose of the Bill, as I have no doubt it is, is a disincentive to local authorities to go on with house building, no blitzed city dare dry up on its council house building programme with all the cases of human need to satisfy. But the Bill without the Amendment will make the cost of future large programmes crippling, if not prohibitive, and, therefore, seriously jeopardise the future housing prospects for blitzed towns.
All the houses Southampton built up to 1952, excluding "prefabs," merely replaced blitzed houses. We did not really start on a level with other cities until six or eight years after the war. It is worth reminding the Committee that at the same time a blitzed city has had its shopping centres and factories to replace. A quarter of Southampton's docks were destroyed in the war and many of its offices, shops and schools damaged or destroyed. Those are burdens which a blitzed city has also to bear, whilst coping with housing.
In the Amendment we are asking the Minister to look at the problem of blitzed cities in something of the spirit that I took him to promise that he would have in looking into the question of new towns and "prefabs." The blitzed city carries an inequitable rate burden. For instance, Southampton gets no relief from Exchequer equalisation grants, not even the latest proposals. I reckon that the blitz


cost Southampton about £1 million in rates since the war, after knocking off the trickle of relief which we got from Governments after the war, after accounting for all that Britain did for Southampton in post-war relief. That was borne in extra rate burden by the citizens of Southampton. That was an unjust burden.
Southampton citizens do not mind what they bear in common with other British citizens because of the war, but they have a right to feel aggrieved if on top of the national burden they carry an additional burden merely because Southampton was a valuable port in the war and Hitler tried to destroy it. If the Minister will accept the Amendment and retain the subsidy for houses built by blitzed cities in years ahead, he will be doing no more than an act of justice to the towns which bore the brunt of Hitler's attack during the war.
I need hardly remind the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of those war days when His late Majesty, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewis-ham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) wandered through the smoking ruins of cities whose damage hurt Britain, but hurt even more intensely the people whose homes and shops and offices were being destroyed. What promises were made in those days of justice for the blitzed cities! Blitzed towns have grumbled a lot, but they have never whined. They have always borne their scars proudly. They have tackled the excessive burdens which Britain has compelled them to shoulder, but they feel that they have certain moral claims on the nation.
I am certain that this afternoon I am expressing the views of citizens of both political parties in Southampton, and of both sides of the Southampton Borough Council. I believe that this demand for maintaining the subsidies will have the support of Labour and Conservative local authorities in all of the blitzed towns and I therefore ask the Minister to accept the Amendment.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: I should like to support the Amendment. I feel sure that if the Minister will only consider the factors which are responsible for the creation of slum areas he will find that precisely the same factors apply to areas of comprehensive development

under the Town and Country Planning Acts. There are slum areas in our towns and cities because of unregulated development, lack of control by any authority, because of our allowing the law of the jungle to operate, allowing people to build houses without damp courses and back-to-back houses without the necessary modern standards of sanitation and convenience. As the result of decades of development without any form of control, we have slum areas throughout our towns and cities. Very largely on that account, too, the slum areas are being increased year by year to the extent of about 200,000 houses a year.
The definition of an area of comprehensive development under the Town and Country Planning Acts is, as it were, the twin brother of the designation slum clearance. There is merely a slightly different aspect of the same problem. The Town and Country Planning Acts were designed to put an end to slum areas by regulating development and by preventing the further development of dwellings and factories of the type built during the generations of unregulated development. Those Acts were designed not only to prevent a recurrence of slums, but properly to designate the parts in an area which were to be residential, and which industrial, and which were to be of parks and open spaces.
Local authorities have a statutory responsibility to provide what are known as development plans. They have been instructed by the Minister to prepare development plans to show precisely what they intend to do with slum areas and with areas which are near-slums and which are known as areas of comprehensive development in which there are small houses amid factories, warehouses, workshops and laundries, and where one finds even private houses adapted for use by small industrial undertakings.
4.30 p.m.
People living in the areas of comprehensive development can produce a catalogue of complaints, not only about the conditions of their own dwellings, but about noise, nuisance, smell, dust and filth which are often the accompaniments of these small factories and workshops. In the southern part of my constituency there is an area of comprehensive development where the local authority is engaged in rebuilding in accordance with


modern planning standards. There for generations my constituents and their families have had to live amid factories, laundries and workshops, and to put up with the noise and dust and other evils, and the local authority has been powerless to do anything about it.
The planning Acts, which have placed an obligation on local authorities, require them to submit to the Minister plans of their proposals to get rid of these social evils. Many plans are in the possession of the Minister, and perhaps he will tell us what he proposes to do about them. I know that he has had the plan for Middlesex for a long time, but, so far as I can see, he is doing nothing about it. Local authorities have the right to expect that the right hon. Gentleman will approve any general proposals in a development plan. It is his duty and responsibility to give effect to the planning Acts, and as quickly as possible to approve the development plans in his possession.
The first of these Amendments asks the right hon. Gentleman to continue the general rate of subsidy for dwellings erected in an area of comprehensive development. In effect, that means that the Minister shall continue to permit the rate of housing subsidy on newly erected housing where a local authority carries out the provisions of its development plan, and undertakes to clear an area of bad housing, so that there will be a residential part as distinct from an industrial part, with provision for parks and open spaces. There is little difference between this kind of work and slum clearance. Most dwellings in such an area are near-slums. If the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to support a progressive housing policy, and carry out his functions as the Minister responsible for town and country planning as well as for housing, I cannot see how he can refuse to permit the continuance of subsidies on dwellings provided in areas of comprehensive development.
Suppose that he does not. I imagine that will be his answer, that he will try to minimise the problem which I have attempted to outline, and that he will say that it is merely part of the general housing scheme for which he intends to make no provision for subsidies after a year or so. If that be the case, the right hon.
Gentleman will completely destroy the development plans of local authorities and the spirit and intention of the Town and Country Planning Acts. It is impossible for local authorities to undertake redevelopment under those Acts without some sort of subsidy for rehousing. We shall have the anomalous situation in which local authorities may be permitted to clear an area, to knock down old houses and ramshackle factories and workshops and to clear the site, but in which there will be no financial assistance for them, and so they will be unable to undertake any rebuilding.
What is such a local authority to do for the people whose houses have been knocked down? Many of those people are not on the housing lists of local authorities. Are we to have the anomalous position—

Mr. Victor Collins: On a point of order. You will observe, Sir Norman, that on the Government benches there is one Junior Minister, one Government Whip and a Parliamentary Private Secretary. May I appeal to you to arrange for my hon. Friend to have the attention of at least the Parliamentary Private Secretary?

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Norman Hulbert): That is not a point of order.

Mr. G. Lindgren: Can we not be shown some respect from the Government side of the Committee? Cannot you request that at least there should be some interest taken by the Government in the proceedings? May I put it to you, Sir Norman, that if hon. Members on this side of the Committee walk out, the Committee will cease to function?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will know that that is not a point of order. I am not responsible for asking members of the Government to attend.

Mr. Sparks: I was saying that local authorities will find themselves—[Interruption.]Now that the Minister has come into the Chamber I hope that his hon. Friend will be able to tell him what I have said. I do not wish to detain the Committee by repeating what I have said. I appeal to the Minister to say that this is a matter of first-class importance to local authorities and to people who live in the areas which I have described. If


he is not prepared to permit the continuance of subsidies for the erection of dwellings in areas of comprehensive development, in effect he will bring to an end the purpose and intent of the development plans already produced under the Town and Country Planning Acts. Local authorities would find it impossible to proceed with their work in areas of comprehensive development under the Town and Country Planning Acts if they were to have no financial assistance by way of subsidy for redevelopment on those clearance areas. The whole object of planning and the creation of better layouts in our towns and cities would be brought completely to a standstill.
Once again I urge the right hon. Gentleman to give his favourable consideration to this point, and I remind him—I first mentioned this when he was not present —that he is responsible for town and country planning as well as housing. He has responsibility for the good development of our towns and cities, to see that the old evils of the past, such as unregulated development, which have created the slums, are banished for ever, and to see that we do not, in the present generation, lay the foundations for future slum areas in the next fifty or sixty years. The Town and Country Planning Acts are designed to prevent a recurrence of slum areas, and areas of blight and bad development. For that reason the Minister would be well advised to extend the subsidies to areas of comprehensive development under the Town and Country Planning Acts. If he does that the Bill will be less objectionable than it appears at present.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): Several hon. Members have pointed out how narrow is the dividing line between an unfit house, represented by a medical officer of health, and a house which he decides, perhaps reluctantly, not so to represent. Nevertheless, according to returns made by local authorities, there are very nearly 1 million unfit houses—unfit in the narrower sense of the term—in this country today.
That is a fact which the Committee should bear clearly in mind in considering this and other Amendments. It ought not to go out from this Committee that we want to see the removal of those unfit

houses placed upon an exactly even footing with the replacement of other houses which, however undesirable in some respects, are somewhat better. I do not believe that our people want any obstacles placed in the way of the removal of the worst houses first.

Mr. Albert Evans: The two go together.

Mr. Powell: As the hon. Member has just interjected, the unfit houses are very often found in areas which require redevelopment as a whole. That is the thought which underlies the Amendment.
Under the Bill as it stands, in such areas of comprehensive development under the Town and Country Planning Acts, the houses which are unfit will attract the slum clearance subsidy, and the Amendment to Clause 11, to which the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) drew attention in passing, will have the effect of ensuring that fit houses now qualifying in an area of redevelopment will not be eligible for a slum clearance subsidy. Beyond those houses, the remainder of the area will attract a planning subsidy, relating to comprehensive redevelopment, towards the cost of acquiring the site of the whole area. Beyond that, again, it is the function of the local housing authority, as part of its general housing programme, to deal with houses in the area which are not unfit.
4.45 p.m.
I do not believe that that will mean that local authorities will simply deal with the unfit houses in those areas, and that we shall see the sort of situation which the hon. Member for Widnes described, in which technically unfit houses are, so to speak, picked out, and aching voids in an area of comprehensive redevelopment are left behind. What we can reasonably expect to see is that local authorities will select for earliest attention areas of comprehensive redevelopment which include the largest number of unfit houses, and will phase their operations in dealing with these areas in such a way that those parts where unfit houses are in the greatest majority will be dealt with first.

Mr. Sparks: Surely the hon. Member is aware that his right hon. Friend already has in his Department the development plans of the area. When those plans were provided they were based not merely


upon how many unfit houses existed in the area, but also upon questions of industry and open spaces.

Mr. Powell: I appreciate that, and I also appreciate that those development plans cannot be carried out all at once. Those areas cannot be comprehensively redeveloped except over a period of years, and one of the things which we want to secure by the Bill is that the literally unfit houses—the worst houses in the country —are dealt with upon a massive scale at the earliest possible time.

Mr. MacColl: The Minister has all the powers he needs—by way of control of loan sanction and all the rest—for phasing development. If his Bill means anything it can only mean that he wishes to forbid development which is not based upon the removal of unfit houses. Otherwise, there is no need for the Bill; he could do it all administratively through his financial control.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member is now asking that local authorities should not be left discretion as to the way in which they proceed with their areas, but should be ruled and governed in that respect by the Ministry. He is under a misapprehension as to the effect and intention of the Bill. Because one wishes to emphasise a certain purpose and induce local authorities to give preference to a certain purpose, that does not mean that they are expected to neglect all other operations, or that all other operations must stop; in fact, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—and not least hon. Members opposite—recognise that the general housing operations of local authorities will continue, but that within those operations the intention is that, as far as possible, preference and priority should be given to the clearance of unfit houses and to dealing with comprehensive development areas in such a way that the unfit houses get the earliest attention.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: The hon. Member puts an extremely plausible case. As I understand, he suggests that the worst slums should be dealt with first, and that redevelopment should be carried out later. He said that redevelopment would take some years. In fact, he is suggesting that the worst cases will be dealt with last. I can tell him why. On

his own argument, an unfit house in a bad area will be left to the very last, because the local authority will not pick out a house here and there and leave jagged holes about. Those houses will, therefore, be left. They will not only be slums; they will be made worse by virtue of the fact that they will be in slum areas.

Mr. Powell: No one can escape from the fact that redevelopment of these areas will take place in phases. It cannot all happen at once. Therefore, some priority has to be determined according to which of these areas will be dealt with. I am saying that the priority will be guided by the Bill so that the areas in which there are the most unfit houses calling for attention will be dealt with earliest instead of in some other way. It is the intention of the Government and the desire of the people generally that everything should now be done to ensure that the very first priority is the removal of unfit houses.
Connected with this case is the case put forward on behalf of the blitzed cities. The blitzed cities have one characteristic in common, at any rate from the point of view from which we are dealing with them this afternoon. They have suffered a loss of rateable value out of proportion to the reduction in the burdens which they had to meet with the rateable value. Their resources were reduced more quickly and severely than were the demands upon those resources. Therefore, measures have been taken both under the previous Administration and under the present one to meet that disparity of means and needs.
Of course, the equalisation grant under the 1948 Local Government Act equalised the rateable value per head up to the national average and many, though not all, of the blitzed cities have qualified for equalisation grant. I understand that, after revaluation, not all will qualify. The Government paid to authorities which acquired large blitzed areas for redevelopment a much higher rate of subsidy than the normal planning subsidy in the initial period, when their rateable value resources might be expected to be lower. In addition, there have been special war distress grants, of which the last has actually not quite run out. Measures to meet the rateable value conditions and problems of the blitzed cities have continually been taken since the end of the war.
The hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) pointed out that these towns may also have special housing needs by virtue of their war history. That will be true undoubtedly of some of them though naturally to an extent which lessens as the war years recede into the past. It will not be true of all. In so far as, in 1956 and the years following, the rateable value problems of a blitzed city in relation to its housing needs are so acute that they produce an undue burden upon the rates, or would, as an alternative, involve the charging of unreasonable rents, the city, upon the facts of the case, would qualify for consideration under Clause 5. This Clause is designed precisely as a net to catch the cases where it proves, upon actual experience in the event, that the circumstances of the local authority, in regard to its rateable value and its housing need, place it at a disadvantage compared with local authorities generally.
The blitzed cities are not asking for any special preference but only that when their peculiar circumstances and their history result in a position in which, to meet their housing needs, they are faced with an undue rate burden, account shall be taken of it. That is the request. The machinery for meeting the request, on the basis of the facts as they are elicited, exists in Clause 5 of the Bill. I would, therefore, ask the Committee to resist the temptation to make any general provision in advance for a whole new class of case, and so to weaken the force and intention of the Bill, which are to concentrate local authorities upon the two main tasks of slum clearance and overspill.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The Parliamentary Secretary will recall that Odysseus, unwilling to be tempted by the voice of the Sirens, filled his ears with cotton wool. I think that is right.

Mr. Powell: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. That is what his companions did. He himself, desiring to hear the voice of the Sirens—as I have myself most attentively listened to the voice of the Sirens opposite—lashed him-selft to the mast.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Member is perfectly right. He, too, of course, is lashed to the mast at the moment. I desired to observe that his hon. Friends had taken the far simpler course. They had neither lashed themselves to the mast

nor filled their ears with cotton wool. They had simply gone away. On this occasion, on this somewhat important proposal, the Tory benches present an appearance of emptiness which testifies to the attitude which the Tory Party adopts towards housing difficulties which its members do not themselves experience.
Let us see what we are trying to do. There is no doubt that the Bill allows for the continuance of subsidies on what are commonly called insanitary houses, that is to say houses that are not fit to live in and cannot be made fit at any reasonable cost. That is just about all that the Bill does in this respect. When we look at the clearance area and the redevelopment area provisions, as they are proposed to be modified, we find that the Minister has taken every care to limit them in that sense.
The question raised by these Amendments is this. Is it the right way of dealing with slums and—I will quote from the Town and Country Planning Act—
with areas which have been extensively war damaged or which have conditions of bad layout or obsolete development
simply to pull down the bad houses in those areas and to leave the other houses, as at one point the hon. Member appeared to suggest might be done as the result of the Bill? I cannot believe that that suggestion, if indeed it was made, was seriously intended.
What are dealt with in the Town and Country Planning Act as areas of comprehensive development are areas which will, no doubt, include some bad houses but will include other houses. The kind of thing which was commonly known as a slum in Birmingham was dealt with by the Birmingham Council when the Labour Government were in power in such a way that its scheme paid very largely for the clearance of the slums. It took a bad area or, to use the more formal phrase, an area of comprehensive development, even though it was not proceeding under that Act, and redeveloped it as a whole. It pulled down the houses that were bad, patched others up, and took over at the same time the good property and dealt with the area as a whole.
Assume that we have a bad area in London or another large city. Surely the right and reasonable thing to do is to deal with the whole area at the same time. The difficulty about the Bill is that,


because it is a housing Bill, the right hon. Gentleman has shut his eyes to what actually has happened and to what is required by good and sensible planning, and has refused to deal with areas; he has refused to deal with overcrowding, and is dealing with the position house by house.

5.0 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I did not mean to intervene, but I must correct the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). No one has suggested—and certainly not my hon. Friend—that we wish to encourage local authorities to pick odd houses here and there out of an area which is calling for redevelopment. Our only reason for not proposing the higher rate of subsidy for all houses whether fit or unfit in redevelopment areas is that we do not believe it desirable, in a period of housing shortage, to give an additional stimulus to accelerating the rate at which houses at present fit are pulled down. Local authorities will, no doubt, continue their plans for the redevelopment of areas, but we do not wish to give additional stimulus to the pulling down of fit houses at this time.

Mr. Mitchison: I may say that the right hon. Gentleman's additional stimulus is no additional stimulus at all. It is simply a question of whether or not he is to cut the existing subsidy in certain respects. That is the first point.
The next is that he disclaims any intention of not having areas of comprehensive development—slums—dealt with as areas. He wants them to be dealt with as areas. He wants local authorities to do as any sensible authority would, which is to take an area, pull down the bad houses, leave the good houses—if that is possible, though it is more probable that some of them will have to be dealt with at the same time—and rehouse the people elsewhere. That is the whole idea underlying the new towns and the overspills, with which we shall deal later.
What will be the effect of what he is doing? He will discourage local authorities from doing exactly what he thinks they should do. He will encourage them to deal piecemeal with house after house instead of dealing with areas. In the case of the blitzed towns he proposes to cut the subsidy where that subsidy has been

rendered necessary not merely by "bad layout or obsolete development" but by enemy action. Let us make no bones about it—that is what he is doing if he refuses this Amendment or one like it.
What are we suggesting? We merely say that in exceptionally bad areas, bad whether as a result of enemy action or as a result of the sins and omissions of the past, a wholesale plan of redevelopment, of laying out—whatever the term— has necessarily to be adopted, as the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as we, and to attempt anything else is foolish and short-sighted to a degree. Nevertheless, the financial steps which the right hon. Gentleman is taking are such as to encourage local authorities to be as shortsighted as they possibly can be, to go picking and choosing, and never to deal with an area as a whole but always to look at it house by house.
The suggestion made by this Amendment is simply this: "You are being ruthless in the Bill. Be a little less ruthless when dealing with areas which are as bad as areas of comprehensive redevelopment must be." We hear stories about encouragement, about the timing of this, that and the other, the phasing of this thing and that, but the question is, "Do you insist so far as this financial Measure goes, on the local authorities' treating these very bad areas house by house, or are you willing, as you should be in view of previous legislation on the subject and the whole policy put forward by this party when it was in office, to give proper encouragement to local authorities to treat the city as a city, a part as a whole part and an area as an area, and to refuse to be bound any longer by the single house point of view so dear to people in the days when single houses nearly always had a single owner?"
It is for those sorts of reasons that I trust the Minister will consider what is proposed in this Amendment and confine his cuts, if he can, to cases where there is at any rate some ground for saying that local authorities might be asked to carry the additional burden. This is not that sort of case. It is a question of proper planning of our cities, and if that planning is to be given the kind of financial blow threatened by the Bill then, if the Minister's ghost ever haunts those places, it will find them in a much nastier mess than they would have been had this Bill not been passed.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: The Parliamentary Secretary's reply has been miserably unsatisfactory. It is all very well to pay lip-service to the needs of the blitzed areas. That was done in moving terms during the war. The Prime Minister and other Ministers used to come to my constituency and say that they would regard it as a personal duty to make good the losses suffered, but the hon. Gentleman's attitude to the problem is one, I fear, of cynicism.
Does he really mean Clause 5 to be considered as a net, as he called it? Is he seriously encouraging blitzed areas to pin their faith in that Clause? During an earlier stage in the consideration of this Bill some of us on this side sought to secure from the Government some idea of the amount they had in mind to make available for the purposes of Clause 5. A figure would give us some idea of how seriously the Clause is intended to fulfil the purpose of a net. Not a word of information has been forthcoming. Can we have it now? If there were an indication that f X million was potentially available we might perhaps be willing to take the undertaking of the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of his Minister more seriously.
We have had this kind of provision in earlier legislation. It might not be entirely in order for me now to go into the details of Clause 5—we will argue them in due course—but its conditions are highly restricted. In view of the terms which must be fulfilled before a payment becomes available, I doubt very much whether it will help the constituency, for instance, of my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Dr. King).

Dr. King: It certainly will not.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: There is a faint hope that in West Ham, with one quarter of the houses blitzed, something may be done.

Mr. Mitchison: And it has no rates from the outfall sewer.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I wish that my hon. and learned Friend's "King Charles's head" would not keep cropping up with such relentless regularity—especially when I am speaking.
This is a very serious matter for the blitzed areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Itchen see med rather to dissociate

himself from us in his attitude to this debate. He thought that an attitude of polite, earnest, sincere, friendly persuasion of the Minister would work. Does he really think that that works with this Tory Government? There was a very good opportunity for the Minister to divide the ranks on this by showing that the sweet reasonableness of my hon. Friend was the right way of getting something out of the Tory Front Bench. The Parliamentary Secretary's speech has been thoroughly reactionary, thoroughly unsatisfactory and, I fear, will prove to have been thoroughly cynical.

Mr. Bevan: I warned the Committee on several occasions that we should hear about Clause 5 over and over again, because when the Minister gets into difficulties in Committee, instead of answering the debate he says, "That will be dealt with under Clause 5."Clause 5 is to be the universal umbrella under which all those who fear that they will be caught in the downpour are asked to take shelter. We shall, of course, discuss Clause 5 when we come to it, but I must say that it is a bit of a temptation to anticipate the meaning of Clause 5 when every time the Government are in trouble the Clause is invoked. We have the invocation of a Clause without the explanation of it.
There is one aspect of the matter upon which I sympathise very much with what the Parliamentary Secretary said, because I have given the same answer on many occasions. That is, when a blitzed city comes forward to the Government for help it has, quite properly, to show, as the hon. Member said, that its resources are inadequate to meet its needs, having regard to the same resources and needs of other local authorities. I think that that is a perfectly proper answer. No local authority is entitled to have any additional assistance from the State unless it can show that, because of circumstances over which it has no control, the provision of the same local authority functions costs the local ratepayers a substantially higher rate than other ratepayers have to pay for the same functions elsewhere.
That is a perfectly proper answer, but unfortunately it has not very much to do with this debate. The point which my hon. Friends are making is a different one: that although we might not be able to show in any objective sense that a blitzed city has to carry a higher rate as


a consequence of having been blitzed, nevertheless that blitzed city will have to live with the scars of war much longer than it would have had to live with them were it not for the Bill.
In other words, what this Bill does, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has pointed out, is discourage local authorities from comprehensive redevelopment schemes. The blitzed cities are to be victimised, not so much financially as aesthetically; not so much because the local ratepayers will necessarily have to carry a heavier financial burden, but because they will have to live with ugliness longer. That is the way they will be victimised. That will happen in London and in Plymouth—rather less in Plymouth, perhaps, but certainly in Hull and areas like that. The charge we are making against the right hon. Gentleman is that in reducing, or almost wiping out, the subsidy for general housing needs he is making it more difficult for those areas and those cities to have decent planning and decent redevelopment.
I thought that was what the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) had in mind, and I was hoping we would receive some help from that side of the Committee. After all, the provision of gracious surroundings and proper town planning has received some enthusiastic support from hon. Members opposite in many areas where they are members of local authorities. How can they divorce what they require to have done, and what many passionately want to have done, in the local town hall from what they are now doing in Parliament? Do they not realise that what the right hon. Gentleman is doing is putting statutory inhibitions on proper development in their towns and cities?
5.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary did not deal with the point I made. What the Minister has done is to make a sort of academic distinction in his Department between general housing need and slum clearance. He has said, "I want to encourage slum clearance; I can do that only at the expense of meeting general housing needs. Therefore, I will make it more profitable for local authorities to pull down slums than to add to their

general accommodation." This is the Minister's argument.
Academically and abstractly, it is possible to see the antithesis between them. It is possible to see, if one lives in Whitehall and does not go down the streets at all, an administrative quarrel between the claims of general housing needs and the claims of slum clearance. When the distinction is made in Parliament, therefore, it looks logical and plausible and it sounds nice on a public platform, but when one looks at the situation in practice and on the ground, one sees that slums exist in certain places. They do not exist on the drawing boards of Whitehall; they are in certain places on the ground.
What the hon. Gentleman has said—and this is the point to which I have not had a reply—is,"If the slum houses are in an area scheduled for redevelopment, they will be dealt with last." He has said that to use the resources for redevelopment is to use resources which might otherwise be devoted to clearing slums; so that, on his own showing, the worst will be dealt with last. People living in slum houses which are in an area scheduled for redevelopment will have to put up with slums as well as bad surroundings.
The hon. Gentleman has not yet answered the question. He started by saying, "Of course, we want those in the greatest need to be dealt with first." That was the argument for dealing with slums ahead of meeting general housing needs. We end with an admission that those whose circumstances are worst are to be dealt with last. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He has already said that it is undesirable—and no local authority would do it—to pick out houses in isolation, leaving gaps. The only alternative to doing that is to redevelop the area as well.

Hon. Members: Or leave it where it is.

Mr. Sandys: I should like to clear up this point. The effect of this Amendment would be to encourage local authorities to give priority to the pulling down of fit houses in these redevelopment areas. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] If the redevelopment area is composed solely of unfit houses this issue does not arise. Then it becomes a slum clearance area and attracts the higher subsidy. This Amendment would not be necessary. If this


Amendment were adopted it would have the effect of encouraging local authorities to pull down fit houses in redevelopment areas. I am not saying that those areas do not require to be redeveloped; but it would encourage them to give priority to pulling them down in preference to building new houses somewhere else for general needs. That is the only possible effect of this Amendment.
Mr. Bevan: There must be something wrong with me, because I do not seem to have conveyed to the right hon. Gentleman the sense of what the Parliamentary Secretary said, although the Minister has to some extent underlined it. The slums about which we are talking are in an area scheduled for redevelopment. Let us start there. That is a simple proposition, is it not? It is the area for redevelopment as a general rule because under the Town and Country Planning Act the area is badly planned. It is a bad area. Is that agreed? So there are slum houses in a bad area. There may be slum houses in a good area. That happens quite frequently. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would listen to me, because he may understand this time. He has said that if he encouraged redevelopment schemes good houses might be pulled down for redevelopment which would divert resources from slum clearance.

Mr. Sandys: From general needs.

Mr. Bevan: And from slum clearance.

Mr. Sandys: Mr. Sandysindicated dissent.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He said on Second Reading, and has said all the time since, that the whole purpose of the Bill was to lay the greatest emphasis on slum clearance and that that is being done by making it financially more advantageous to clear slums than to meet general housing needs. I am pointing out that if it is desirable, as it obviously is, when slums are pulled down in a redevelopment area to proceed with redevelopment of the whole area, and if it is being discouraged by the Bill, on that logic alone those in the worst position will be dealt with last. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that?

Mr. Sandys: Why does the right hon. Member assume that the unfit houses in a redevelopment area are necessarily the

worst houses? Why are they worse than slum houses in a slum area? He has talked about a redevelopment area being a bad area, but the very fact that it is a redevelopment area and not a slum clearance area implies that the houses in the main are not slum houses. A slum clearance area invariably contains a certain number of houses which are fit and have to be pulled down, but a redevelopment area is an area not primarily a slum area but which no doubt contains a proportion of slum houses. Therefore, by the very definition it is not such a bad area as a slum clearance area. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course it is not; otherwise, it would be a clum clearance area.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman is once more airing this and point of view, which does not take into consideration the actual facts as they are. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) should really open his eyes when he goes about the country. Quite often the area is scheduled as a redevelopment area not only because it has a great number of bad houses in it but because those slums are in close juxtaposition to industry of various kinds and of high density. The actual houses may be all right, but it quite often happens that they are in close proximity to a very high density of industrial and other buildings. What I am pointing out to the Committee is that slum houses and slum dwellers existing in circumstances of that sort by definition will be dealt with last.
What my hon. and learned Friend said which is also important was that local authorities will be financially discouraged from developing their cities properly. We regard that as most serious. The planners are beginning to be alarmed by the circumstances—

Mr. Raymond Gower: As the right hon. Member has referred to me, perhaps I may interrupt to say that I do not think we are at issue on this. My right hon. Friend would agree to some extent with what the right hon. Member has said, but what he has said in addition is that there are even worse areas than the areas referred to by the right hon. Member.

Mr. Bevan: Do not talk about a worse area but talk about individual men and women. When talking about areas we are always forgetting the individual men


and women living there. We should think of the individual slum dwellers living in an area which is scheduled for redevelopment for reasons we have already mentioned in quoting the Act.
When the Parliamentary Secretary said that the local authority would not take down houses and leave gaps here and there he was actually saying that people in those areas can expect to have success from slums after everybody else has been dealt with.

Mr. Collins: I want to raise one question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is a matter of importance, I have been sitting here through the whole debate and I want to ask a question of the Minister which has an immediate bearing on what has been discussed.
The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that I wrote to him about a problem in my constituency. It concerned a clearance area under Part V of the 936 Act. The local authority was anxious to know whether flats built on that site would qualify for the slum subsidy despite the fact that it was a Part V area. The proposal was subsequently to build flats there and to rehouse in them people from the slum clearance area. The Parliamentary Secretary wrote to me on 10th January saying:
The answer in general terms is that whether or not the higher rate of subsidy is given for any particular houses or flats that are built does not depend on whether the site was acquired under Part III or Part V of the Housing Act, 1936. What matters is that the houses or flats should need to be provided as a result of the council's slum clearance proposal's.
That tacitly says that, other things being equal, approval will be given to a scheme for building on a re-development area, not a slum clearance area, flats in which people now living in slums will be housed and, since they will be needed in connection with the slum clearance proposals of the council, the flats will qualify under Part V for the slum clearance subsidy. If that is so, it implies that despite this Bill the Minister will be prepared to approve a scheme from a local authority which

envisages comprehensive development—the acquisition of a site under Part V and rehousing on that site of people from slum properties—and give the local authority the full slum clearance subsidy.

I should like to know whether that is correct because, if so, in part it relieves what has been said on this side of the Committee. Secondly, if it is correct, why cannot the Minister accept this Amendment? The Parliamentary Secretary said:
The Minister will…be sending out later a circular to local authorities explaining the arrangements in detail.
If that can be done by circular, why cannot it be done by this Amendment?

Mr. Sandys: I believe the Committee wishes to bring this debate to a close, but I should like to say a few words in reply to the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins). One always hesitates to say that an hon. Member is quite correct when that might be given an interpretation which might be used in evidence against one afterwards, but, broadly speaking, what the hon. Member said is correct. That is to say, the higher subsidy of £22 will be available—in the case of flats it will be correspondingly higher—in respect of every family that is rehoused from a slum dwelling. It does not matter where they are housed.
5.30 p.m.
There is all the difference in the world between that and the purpose of the Amendment. The Amendment would enable the higher subsidy to be payable not only in respect of the families out of the redevelopment area who are living in unfit houses and are rehoused there or elsewhere, but it would also make the higher subsidy payable in respect of all other families whose houses were demolished in the course of redeveloping the area. That is something altogether wider.

Question put, That those words be there inserted: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 221, Noes 271.

Division No. 91.]
AYES
[5.31 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Awbery, S. S.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)


Allaun, F. (Salford, E.)
Bacon, Miss Alice
Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Balfour, A.
Benson, G.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bartley, P.
Beswick, F.


Anderson, Frank
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)




Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Parkin, B. T.


Blenkinsop, A.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Paton, J.


Boardman, H.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Pearson, A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hoy, J. H.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hubbard, T. F.
Popplewell, E.


Bowles, F. G.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Boyd, T. C.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Probert, A. R.


Brockway, A. F.
Hunter, A. E.
Proctor, W. T.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pryde, D. J.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rankin, John


Burke, W. A.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Reeves, J.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Reid, William


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Janner, B.
Rhodes, H.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Callaghan, L. J.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carmichael, J.
Jeger, Mrs.Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs.S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Champion, A. J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Ross, William


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Royle, C.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Clunie, J.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Short, E. W.


Coldrick, W.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.



Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
King, Dr. H. M.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lawson, G. M.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Cove, W. G.
Ledger, R. J.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Skeffington, A. M.


Cronin, J. D.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Daines, P.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Logan, D. G.
Sparks, J. A.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Mabon, Dr. J. D.
Steele, T.


Deer, G.
MacColl, J. E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McGhee, H. G.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Dodds, N. N.
McInnes, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Dye, S.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. c.
McLeavy, Frank
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Swingler, S. T.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sylvester, G. O.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mahon, S.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mallalieu, J. p. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Thornton, E.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Timmons, J.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fernyhough, E.
Mason, Roy
Usborne, H. C.


Fienburgh, W.
Mayhew, C. P.
Warbey, W. N.


Finch, H. J.
Mellish, R. J.
Weitzman, D.


Fletcher, Eric
Messer, Sir F.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Forman, J. C.
Mikardo, Ian
West, D. G.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Monslow, W.



Gibson, C. W.
Moody A. S
white, Mrs.Eirene(E.Fllnt)


Greenwood, Anthony
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mort, D. L.
Wigg, George


Grey, C. F.
Moss, R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moyle, A.
Williams, David (Neath)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mulley, F. W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Hale, Leslie
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Coine Valley)
Oliver, G. H
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Hamilton, W. W.
Oram, A. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hannan, W.

Winterbottom, Richard


Harrlson, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Orbach, M.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hastings, S.
Oswald, T.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hayman, F. H.
Owen, W. J.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Healey, Denis
Padiey, W. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Palmer, A. M. F.



Herbison, Miss M.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Holman, P.
Pargiter, G. A.
Mr. J. Taylor and


Holmes, Horace
Parker, J.
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. p. G.
Banks, Col. C.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)


Aitken, W. T.
Barber, Anthony
Bidgood, J. C.


Alport, C. J. M.
Barlow, Sir John
Biggs-Davison, J. A.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Barter, John
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Baxter, Sir Beverley
Bishop, F. P.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Beamish, MaJ. Tufton
Black, C. W.


Armstrong, C. W.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Body, R. F.


Ashton, H.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Bossom, Sir A. C.


Atkins, H. E.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)


Balniel, Lord
Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.







Braithwalte, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nugent, C. R. H.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Oakshott, H. D.


Browne, J. Nixon (Cralgton)
Hirst, Geoffrey
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bryan, P.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Holt, A. F.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hope, Lord John
Osborne, C.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Page, R. G.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Horobin, Sir Ian
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A.(SaffronWalden)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Peyton, J. W. w.


Carr, Robert
Howard, Hon. Creville (St. Ives)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Howard, John (Test)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pitman, I. J.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Cole, Norman
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Pott, H. P.


Conant, Maj, Sir Roger
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Coi. J. K.
Hyde, Montgomery
Profumo, J. D.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Iremonger, T. L.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ramsden, J. E.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rawlinson, Peter


Crouch, R. F.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Redmayne, M.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cunningham, Knox
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Currle, C. B. H.
Johnson, Howard (Kemp town)
Ronton, D. L. M.


Dance, J. C. G.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L, W.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Davidson, Viscountess
Kaberry, D.



Davies, Rt.Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Keegan, D.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


D'Avigdor-ColdsmId, Sir Henry
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Robertson, Sir David


Deedes, W. F
Kerr, H. W.
Rob nson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kershaw, J. A.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Kirk, P. M.
Roper, Sir Harold


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lagden, G. W
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Russell, R. S.


Drayson, G. B.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Leather, E. H. C.
Sharpies, R. C.


Duthie, W. S.
Leavey, J. A.
Shepherd, William


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Legge-Bourke, MaJ. E. A. H.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Legh, Hon. Peter (petersfield)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Errington, Sir Erie
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Speir, R. M.


Erroll, F. J.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lloyd, MaJ. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Fell, A.
Lloyd-George, MaJ. Rt. Hon. G.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Finlay, Graeme
Longden, Gilbert
Stevens, Geoffrey


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Storey, S.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
McAdden, S. J.
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)


Fort, R.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Freeth, D. K.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McKlbbin, A. J.
Teeling, W.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Mackie, J. H. (Calloway)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Glover, D.
Maciay, Rt. Hon. John
Thompson,Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Cough, C. F. H.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Tlley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Gower, H, R.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)



Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Maddan, Martin
Turner, H.F.L.


Green, A.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Gresham Cooke, R.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Grimond, J.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Vosper, D. F.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Marples, A. E.
Wade, D. W.


Gurden, Harold
Marshall, Douglas
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mathew, R.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Mawby, R. L.
Wall, Major Patrick


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maiden)
Molson, A. H. E.
Webbe, Sir H.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Whitelaw,W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Neave, Airey
Wilson Geoffrey (Truro)


Hay, John
Nlcholls, Harmar
Woollam, John Victor


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Famham)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nicoison, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)



Heath, Edward
Nield, Basil (Chester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Godber.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Mitchison: This is the main Clause of the Bill and we have on several occasions expressed our strong objections to it with such conviction, with such sincerity and with such eloquence that

we do not feel that we can improve on that now.

Question put: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 269, Noes 221.

Division No. 92.]
AYES
[5.41 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. C.
Fell, A.
Leavey, J. A.


Aitken, W. T.
Finlay, Graeme
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Alport, C. J. M.
Fisher, Nigel
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Fort, R.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Anstruther-Cray, Major W. J.
Freeth, D. K.
Llnstead, Sir H. N.


Armstrong, C. W.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. O.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G.(Sutton Coldfield)


Ashton, H.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Atkins, H. E.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.


Balniel, Lord
Glover, D.
Longden, Gilbert


Banks, Col. C.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chlswick)


Barber, Anthony
Gough, C. F. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Barlow, Sir John
Gower, H. R.
McAdden, S. J.


Barter, John
Graham, Sir Fergus
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
McKibbin, A. J.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Green, A.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Gresham Cooke, R.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Grimond, J.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Bidgood, J. C.
Gurden, Harold
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bishop, F. P.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maddan, Martin


Black, C. W.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Body, R. F.
Harrison, A, B. C. (Maldon)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bowen, E. R. (Cardlgan)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Marlowe, A. A. H,


Boyd'Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marples, A. E.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Harvey, John (Walthanutow, E.)
Marshall, Douglas


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Mathew, R.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hay, John
Mawby, R. L.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craighton)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Bryan, P.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P.G. T.
Heath, Edward
Molson, A. H. E.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Burden, F. F. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Mott-Radolyffe, C. E.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Naim, D. L. S.


Carr, Robert
Hirst, Geoffrey
Neave, Airey


Cary, Sir Robert
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nicholls, Harmar


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holt, A. F.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hernsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Cole, Norman
Horobin, Sir Ian



Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Nield, Basil (Chester)


Cooper, Sqn, Ldr. Albert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Howard, John (Teat)
Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hudson Sir Austin (Lewitham, N.)
Oakshott, H. D.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Crouch, R. F.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Crowder, Petre (Ruisllp—Narthwood)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cunningham, Knox
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Osborne, C.


Currie, G. B. H.
Hyde, Montgomery
Page, R. G.


Dance, J. C. G.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Davidson, viscountess
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pllkington, Capt. R. A.


Deedes, W. F.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pitman, I. J.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Pott, H. P.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Powell, J. Enoch


Doughty, C. J. A.
Kaberry, D.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Drayson, G. B.
Keegan, D.
Profumo, J. D.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Kerr, H. W.
Ramsden, J. E.


Duthie, W. S.
Kershaw, J. A.
Rawlinson, Peter


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Kirk, P. M.
Redmayne, M.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lagden, G. W.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lambert, Hon. G.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Errington, Sir Eric
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Erroll, F. J.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Leather, E. H. C.
Robertson, Sir David




Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Vosper, D. F.


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Storey, S.
Wade, D. W.


Roper, Sir Harold
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Russell, R. S.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Wall, Major Patrick


Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Teeling, W.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Sharpies, R. C.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Webbe, Sir H.


Shepherd, William
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R. (Croydon, S.)
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Speir, R. M.
Touche, Sir Gordon
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)
Turner, H. F. L.
Woollam, John Victor


Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir p. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Vane, W. M. F.



Stevens, Geoffrey
Viekers, Miss J. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Studholme and Mr. Godber.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Gibson, C. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Greenwood, Anthony
Mason, Roy


Anderson, Frank
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mayhew, C. P.


Awbery, S. S.
Grey, C. F.
Mellish, R. J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Messer, Sir F.


Balfour, A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mikardo, Ian


Bartley, P.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mitchison, G. R.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hale, Leslie
Monslow, W.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hall, Rt. Hn.Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Moody, A. S.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Hamiton, W. W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, w.)


Benson, G.
Hannan, W.
Mort, D. L.


Beswick, F.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Moss, R.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hastings, S.
Moyle, A.


Blackburn, F.
Hayman, F. H.
Mulley, F. W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Healey, Denis
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Boardman, H.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Herbison, Miss M.
Oliver, G. H.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Holman, P.
Oram, A. E.


Bowles, F. G.
Holmes, Horace
Orbach, M.


Boyd, T. C.
Houghton, Douglas
Oswald, T.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Owen, W. J.


Brockway, A. F.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Padley, W. E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hoy, J. H.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hubbard, T. F.
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Burke, W. A.
Hughes, Ctedwyn (Anglesey)
Pargiter, G. A.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Parker, J.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parkin, B. T.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hunter, A. E.
Paton, J.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pearson, A.


Carmichael, J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Popplewell, E.


Champion, A. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Chapman, W. D.
Janner, B.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, w.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Probert, A. R.


Clunie, J.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Proctor, W. T.


Coldrick, W.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St.Pncs, S.)
Pryde, D. J.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)




Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Rankin, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Reeves, J.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Reid, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Rhodes, H.


Cronin, J. D.
Jones, J. ldwal (Wrexham)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Daines, P.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
King, Dr. H. M.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lawson, G. M.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


de Freitas, Ceoffrey
Ledger, R. J.
Ross, William


Dodds, N. N.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Royle, C.


Dye, S.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lindgren, G. S.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Logan, D. G.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mabon, Dr. J. D
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacColl, J. E.
Skeffington, A. M.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McGhee, H. G.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mclnnes, J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Sorensen, R. W.


Fernyhough, E.
McLeavy, Frank
Sparks, J. A.


Fienburgh, W.
MaoMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Steele, T.


Finch, H. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Fletcher, Erio
Mahon, S.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.







Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Warbey, W. N.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Weitzman, D.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Swingler, S. T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Sylvester, G. O.
West, D. G.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wheeldon, W. E.
Winterbottom, Richard


Taylor, John (West Lothian)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Thornton, E.
Wigg, George
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Timmons, J.
Wilkins, W. A.
Zilliacus, K.


Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, David (Neath)



Usborne, H. C.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Sbort and Mr. Deer.

Clause 2.—(POWER TO ABOLISH OR REDUCE SUBSIDIES.)

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, after "may" to insert:
at any time after the expiry of a period of two years beginning on the passing of this Act and thereafter.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): It may be for the convenience of the Committee also to consider the Amendment in page 2, line 21, after "may" to insert:
at any time after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-six and thereafter.

Mr. Lindgren: That suggestion is quite acceptable to us, Sir Rhys. The Minister has said repeatedly during the discussions on Clause 1 that he has no desire to stop, prevent or hinder the procedure of housing for general needs. The effect of this Amendment is to prevent the Minister from altering the subsidy allowed in the Bill for a period of at least two years.
We all know that the hindering of development for housing needs is dependent very largely on whether or not local authorities have confidence in their being able to arrange programmes, even if they believe that, with the subsidy as it is in the Bill, they can proceed with such schemes. The most likely thing to hinder local authorities in proceeding with schemes is the inability to programme ahead with any degree of certainty.
We have had subsidies in regard to housing under various Bills for many years, and it has been understood by local authority associations that there should be discussions, generally yearly, as to the intentions of the Government, which in days gone by provided two-thirds of the subsidy, as to whether or not the subsidy was to continue in the form then provided. In that way local authorities have known with a degree of certainty when they started to make plans that they had a reasonable right to expect that when they come to fruition the local

authorities would receive the subsidy under the conditions in which they conceived their plans.
In housing subsidies, as in many other matters in local government and in industry and in all things associated with Parliament, under the Labour Government there was the greatest degree of stability that local authorities have ever known. During the whole of the time that local authorities were building houses at the request of the Labour Government the subsidy stood at the same figure from 1945 to 1951—the lifetime of the Labour Government. It stood then at the figure of £16 10s. from the central fund and £5 10s. from the local authority's rate fund, making a total subsidy of £22. Of course, when the Tory Government came in there was an immediate pay-off to the financiers, their friends, an increase in the interest rates and the raising of the subsidy because of the increased interest rates to £26 14s. from the central authority and £8 18s. from the local authority to the total of £35 12s. That was varied in April, 1955, to a subsidy of £22 Is. from the central authority and £7 7s. from the local authority, a total of £29 8s. That subsidy has been altered by the Bill in November, 1955, to £10.
The local authorities have said in no uncertain terms to the Minister that they require a greater degree of stability and the knowledge that they are likely to be able to prepare their plans with greater certainty for the future. The Minister has said that, although the Bill gives him the right to end the £10 subsidy at any time, he intends to carry it on for a year or two. We do not think that a casual phrase by the Minister—if I am being unkind in calling it a casual phrase, I will say a phrase used by the Minister in his Second Reading speech—is good enough, particularly in relation to this Government, for a local authority to take it as a guarantee that the subsidy is likely to remain at that figure for the length of


time that has been mentioned. Therefore, we desire by this Amendment to make it explicit that for at least two years, even at the miserable subsidy of £10, local authorities, looking at the plans for general housing need, will know at the time they set out to acquire sites, offer tenders and accept tenders that they will at least have that subsidy to assist them in their general housing accounts and their apportionment of the figure for rent.

Mr. A. Evans: I hope that the Minister will see the wisdom of the Amendment. He is taking the power completely to abolish the housing subsidy for general need. The Clause will enable him to reduce the subsidy, abolish it, or even to reduce the period for which the reduced subsidy shall be paid.
I think that everyone in the Committee and in local government generally will agree that the power which the Minister seeks to take in this Clause is considerable. It gives him power forthwith to cease the payment of subsidy on houses for general need. All that he has to do is to bring in an Order and lay it on the Table. From the date of that Order, the subsidy for general housing need will cease to operate. It is not necessary for him to give any warning to the local authorities. He can precipitately and suddenly cut off the subsidy entirely for general housing need.

Mr. Powell: Mr. Powellindicated dissent

Mr. Evans: The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. I know that in the Clause there is a provision that the Minister shall consult such local authority organisations as he thinks should be consulted. That is the only limitation upon the Minister's arbitrary power to abolish the housing subsidy for general need—the requirement that he shall consult with such local government associations as he deems suitable.
The Minister knows very well that when he last consulted the local authority associations his consultation was rather in the form of telling them what he intended to do. He said, "This is what I am going to do and you must accept it." No attempt was made to arrive at a reasonable arrangement with the local authorities. It was merely a question of the Minister meeting them and telling them

that he proposed to carry out certain things and, whether they liked them or not, they would have to accept them.
6.0 p.m.
After that experience the local authorities do not value greatly the consultation which the Minister must have with them before he decides to abolish or reduce the housing subsidy for general need. The right hon. Gentleman should give them as much warning as possible of his intention to reduce or abolish the subsidy, if only for the sake of the smooth running of house building. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman desires to help the local authorities as much as possible within the terms of this Bill, because any Minister of Housing would wish to do so.
It would not be difficult for the Minister to give the local authorities such a warning because he will know in advance that the time will arrive when he will think it suitable to reduce or abolish the subsidy. His advisers will tell him and he will lay the Order upon the Table. Why will not the Minister give the local authorities the benefit of as much advance warning as possible? That is a reasonable request for us to make.
My hon. Friend has adduced all the arguments why the local authorities should not have their programmes suddenly interfered with and their plans disrupted by sudden changes in subsidy rates. I urge the Minister to do all he can to give as much notice as possible to the local authorities who have the difficult task of planning and building houses. If the right hon. Gentleman will only follow that sensible course, the local authorities will be grateful and slum clearance and building for general need will go forward.
Although the Amendment specifies two years, I am sure that my hon. Friends are not wedded to that period, but we ask the Minister to see what he can do to give the local authorities as much notice as possible.

Mr. Sparks: I support this Amendment, which is fair, but very moderate, because the minimum period should have been at least five years Indeed, the Clause should have been rejected because it aims a major blow at the housing programmes of local authorities. Despite the belief of the right hon. Gentleman that housing for general purposes will continue, he may find that it may not after


a year or two. The net result will be that housing for general purposes will be considerably less, if it is not completely extinguished. Therefore, this Amendment is a moderate one in proposing a period of only two years in which the right hon. Gentleman should not vary any further the rates of subsidies and should not carry out his threat to abolish all subsidies on housing for general purposes.
The Minister should realise that his announcement last November placed local authorities in great difficulty because they did not anticipate this fatal blow. When it came, it left in great difficulty a number of local authorities which had spent large sums of money on acquiring land and which had not at that date produced tenders for the Minister to approve. As a consequence they found themselves saddled with land upon which they expected to receive a full rate of subsidy. They now find that the reduced rate of subsidy applies and that, if they do not develop that land within twelve months, they run the risk of having no subsidies. So I feel that the; right hon. Gentleman should not rush this matter as he is. It is not the way to treat our great local authorities which are carrying out a responsible job for the State and doing a fine job of work for the people in providing housing accommodation.
The Amendment is intended to provide for a period of at least two years during which the local authorities can consolidate what they have already undertaken. If it is accepted, they can do this knowing that during the period of stability they can properly assess their financial commitments, and that any land which they have acquired can be developed within the two years to receive the benefit of what subsidy there is. The Amendment would also give them a period in which to make up their minds whether they can undertake further schemes for general housing, or to what extent they will have to run these down to meet the new circumstances.
In view of the modesty of this Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman should accept it as evidence of good faith towards the local authorities. It is desirable to give them this period in which to consolidate their plans in the knowledge that the subsidies will not be varied during that time.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: The Bill as drafted empowers the Minister to make an order under this Clause at a date prior to the date upon which the local authorities become relieved of their obligation to make contributions out of the general rate fund. The purpose of my Amendment, in page 2, line 21, is to draw attention to the fact that when the Bill was first published it was not known what would be the timetable of its progress. Yet the fact that the Minister was empowered to make an order reducing the subsidy before the local authorities were relieved of their obligation under Clause 8 is an illustration of the precipitate fashion in which the Minister proposes to proceed. Because his process is precipitate, I support the submissions on this point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren).

Mr. Michael Stewart: My hon. Friends who have spoken in support of this Amendment have made a powerful general case for it. I wish to reinforce what they have said by drawing attention to a recent event in my own constituency which brings out forcibly the reason why it is extremely undesirable at present to do anything which may discourage local authorities from the provision of housing for general need. The Clause, as it now stands, would have that effect; the Amendment would at least mitigate the evil.
There is in my constituency a block of flats known as the Sir Oswald Stoll Mansions, intended for, and used by, the families of men disabled in the service of their country in both world wars. It happens with all such foundations that from time to time a tenant dies leaving a widow who is normally expected to find accommodation elsewhere so that the flat can be made available to other ex-Service men. The number of men requiring, and who might profit by, such accommodation is always considerable.
The position of the widow presents the Sir Oswald Stoll Foundation with a problem of some delicacy. On the one hand, it does not wish to appear in the position of someone trying to evict the widow from what had been her home. On the other hand, it does not wish a flat intended for the use of a disabled ex-Service man and his family not to be so used for a long period.
During recent years the problem has been dealt with to some extent by the fact that the two local authorities concerned, the Fulham Borough Council and the London County Council, could cooperate in helping such widows to find accommodation. The size and severity of the problem facing the Foundation is thus in part determined by the extent to which the local authorities can provide housing for general need.
The situation recently has been that both local authorities have found it harder to make room for even a single extra case. The borough council is faced with the very severe problem of the rehousing of families from clearance areas. The L.C.C., proportionate to its resources, is faced with the same problem in almost the same degree. Both authorities are being obliged to say that it is extremely difficult for them to offer accommodation to anyone except families coming from clearance areas.
The borough council has been put almost entirely in that position and recent acts of Government policy on housing have not made it any easier for it to overcome its difficulties, and its apprehension is that if the Measure passes in its present form the difficulties of the local authority will become even greater. That means that the problem facing such a body as the Sir Oswald Stoll Foundation will become all the more acute because the possibility of widows finding accommodation elsewhere is being gradually reduced to nothing. If the Clause passes in its present form, that will represent another blow at such a prospect.
What has happened as a result of all this? The Foundation has recently sent a letter to all the widows, of whom there are nine, now living in Foundation flats, pointing out, with justification, that it has sought in the past to treat the problem sympathetically and not ungenerously by not exerting undue pressure on the widow to leave her flat and by foregoing any payment of rent during the first three months of widowhood. The Foundation now says that, while preserving that provision and not taking any rent during the first three months of widowhood, it will, after the period of widowhood has lasted twelve months, require that the standard rent for the flat, which is 14s. 6d. per

week, to be raised by 5s. per week, and after another three months by another 5s., and so on, until it finally reaches the alarming figure of 39s. 6d. per week.
That is the kind of situation which is being created because of the difficulty of local authorities in providing sufficient accommodation to meet general needs. It is a situation which will be rendered more acute if the Clause is passed in its present form. It is a situation which would be in some degree—I would not overstress it—mitigated if the Amendment, or something like it, were accepted. The purpose and effect of the Amendment would be to make it at any rate a little easier for local authorities to provide housing to meet general needs and would remove at least one of the discouragements to them in that process which now exists in the Bill.
I instance this as an individual example which brings home the need not to do anything discouraging the provision of housing for general needs. The Foundation's gesture in increasing the rent from 14s. 6d. to 39s. 6d. pec week cannot solve its problem.

6.15 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is carrying his illustration a little too far.

Mr. Stewart: I am sorry, Sir Rhys. I did not wish to do that. However. I submit that it is important when we are discussing a Bill of this kind, containing so much legal and administrative matter, that occasionally we should remind ourselves that behind that matter there lie a number of very personal and burning human problems. I hoped not to delay the Committee unduly in drawing attention to the one to which I have referred.
The Sir Oswald Stoll Foundation is making a gesture which cannot really solve its difficulties, because it cannot bring accommodation into existence by the device of raising the rent. The Minister might be able to help if he would not only look favourably at the Amendment but also reconsider much that is in the Bill. The action of the Foundation is really a gesture of despair, the kind of despair which is being created among local authorities and others responsible for providing housing by the policy of which the Bill and the Clause are part.
When this kind of problem is being created—I do not say that it is more than one of many examples which could be quoted—this is not the time to approve of a Clause which will add immediately to the insecurity and uncertainties of local authorities and make it ever harder for them to provide housing accommodation to meet general needs.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I support the Amendment and beg the Minister to accept it, not only for the reasons which have been given but because it seems to me that the Bill and, particularly, the Clause, which enable the Minister to abolish even the slum clearance subsidy, are not only making difficulties for local authorities but are in direct contradiction to the advice which the Minister's Department has been giving to local authorities.
One thing essential in connection with any kind of housing is that the local authority shall look two or three years ahead. It is impossible to imagine local authorities being able to deal with slums under this Measure without taking the-trouble to look several years ahead in the planning and programming of their work. In any case, it takes up to two years to complete the procedure under the slum clearance legislation. The Clause which we wish to amend gives the Minister power to abolish or reduce any housing subsidy for a house or a site even though the local authority may have been planning carefully for the last four or five years to do the work.
Reading through the Report of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government for 1950–51 to 1954, I discovered that the policy of the Department—and a good policy it is—is to advise local authorities to look at least three years ahead. That means that local authorities are advised to commit themselves to heavy capital expenditure for at least three years ahead.
I should like to read to the Committee the advice given in page 6 of this very interesting Report. It says:
A steady supply of sites for both local authority and private building is essential for continuity of house building. In the choice of a site, regard must be had not only to its physical suitability for building, and the availability of services; but also to the general proposals for the planning of the area and the settled Government policy of avoiding, so far as possible, encroachment on food-

producing land. In consequence, the selection of sites has sometimes been a long and difficult task, and local authorities were advised, as mentioned above, to plan their land purchase at least three years ahead.
If we are to tell local authorities that they must plan their purchases of land at least three years ahead—they will have to buy it if only for slum clearance—it is unfair of the Minister to take powers to abolish or reduce the subsidy merely by bringing an Order to the House.
Local authorities are up in arms, as was evidenced by discussions a few days ago at a conference of urban district councils, when there was passed a resolution condemning the Bill. Local authorities are very worried and, if the Clause is unamended, it will mean that the Government are saying one thing in the Bill and another as administrators of the country's housing. That is inconsistent and I therefore urge the Committee to accept this very reasonable Amendment.

Mr. Denis Howell: I want to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), because the Clause puts local authorities, especially those of any size, in an administratively impossible position. I hope that in replying to the debate the Minister will clarify his early remark—I think his actual words were "about a year or so"—and let us know precisely what is the Government's intention about taking advantage of the Clause and ending the housing subsidy, as, unfortunately, they intend to do.
Any large authority is already in considerable difficulties in planning ahead. Certainly, that applies to my authority, Birmingham Corporation. In consideration of the complexities of housing allocation and housing rents for priority cases and similar difficulties, one can see at once that the position is growing more acute. The uncertainty to which the Clause gives rise adds to those considerable difficulties.
From time to time we have difficulties caused through eviction. At no time can a local authority possibly be aware of the number of people to be evicted at one stroke of the pen in a county court and thereby added to the authority's housing register. It is a growing evil and bordering on the scandalous that each year thousands of families—hundreds in Birmingham—are added to the housing lists


of local authorities after a hearing of a minute or two in a county court, if the defendant has not been sufficiently fortunate to afford legal representation.
If local authorities could be told that they would have two years from today, or, even better, two years' notice from the time the Government decide, that would help the position. Local authorities have to consider not only the evicitions, but other priority cases which any local authority wants to house in accordance with its rebate scheme—particularly as all the time the Government are urging local authorities to adopt rebate schemes or something similar.
It so happens that in Birmingham we have a pool subsidies plan and we have more than 180 different rents for our municipal houses. It can be seen that unless we have adequate notice as to the Government's precise intentions about subsidies, municipal tenants in Birmingham will not be acquainted with their future rent position. Birmingham Corporation will not have an adequate opportunity to consider the new situation which the complete abolition of subsidies will create. The same, of course, applies up and down the country and especially to other large towns.
This is an extremely modest proposal. Its very moderation should commend it to the Minister, but it is absolutely essential on the grounds of logic, good planning and what is mechanically feasible in local government that the Amendment should be accepted and that local authorities should have two years' notice of the Government's intention to abolish the £10 subsidy.
I hope that for good local government and to ensure a good relationship between the central government and local authorities the Amendment will be carried—although we do not like the provisions of the Clause and, in fact, bitterly object to them. We should then at least give local authorities reasonable time to weigh the effect of the Clause upon subsidies and housing rents generally and to meet the situation in a sane and orderly manner.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: We have been discussing two Amendments. The first, which was moved by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), asks that no

reduction or abolition of subsidies shall take place for two years after the passing of the Bill. In support of that, the hon. Member for Wellingborough went over the history of the Labour Government's administration of housing subsidies. He prided himself on the fact that under the Labour Government there was the greatest degree of stability. He went on to say that subsidies stood at the same level during the six years of the Labour Government. That, of course, is quite true, but it is a most misleading statement.

Mr. Sparks: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that truth is misleading in that case?

Mr. Sandys: It very often is. It is a completely correct statement, but it is most misleading when advanced in support of the suggestion that the value of the subsidies provided throughout the period of the Labour Government was maintained. As we all know, the nominal value of the subsidies remained at the same level, but their real value progressively declined as the value of money declined with the galloping inflation that took place.

Mr. Sparks: It is going on now.

Mr. Sandys: I am saying that it is impossible to claim that the value of the subsidies was maintained. It was being progressively cut by the fall in the value of money. I am merely suggesting that this claim of the hon. Gentleman is an empty one.
The hon. Member for Islington, Southwest (Mr. A. Evans) and the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) both complained—I think this was the most important argument advanced—that under this Clause local authorities would receive no advance warning of any reduction in subsidy, and that that was not fair. Local authorities will get much more warning than was provided by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) in the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946, which has been held up to us on different occasions as a model in these matters. I hope that in fairness the Committee will give due weight to the fact that, under this Bill, any reduction in the subsidies will apply only to houses for which tenders are approved after the date specified in the Order. That is to say, that


any cut in the subsidy, any future reduction will affect only houses which were not started at the date when the cut was made.

Mr. A. Evans: Will not the Minister agree that it would be impossible for him to apply a cut to houses for which tenders have been approved?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Gentleman has greatly helped me, because in the 1946 Act the Minister is enabled to cut the subsidy without warning in respect of any house completed the day after the Order is made.

Mr. Sparks: But did he?

Mr. Sandys: We are talking about the provisions of this Bill. We can discuss what happened afterwards on another occasion, but at the moment we are discussing the powers to be given to the Minister.

Mr. Sparks: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to accept the precedent that he has told us about, and follow it in the next year or two?

Mr. Sandys: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. [Laughter.] I am sorry, but I think this is pertinent. Hon. Members opposite complain that this Bill provides powers to cut the housing subsidies without proper warning—

Mr. Sparks: Yes.

Mr. Sandys: —but they are the very people who introduced the 1946 Housing Act which, as I have already said, provides powers for the Minister to cut the subsidies with immediate effect. The Order has to be affirmed by this House within 40 days and then takes effect immediately. Therefore, under the 1946 Act it was quite possible for a local authority to plan a house; obtain a tender, get it approved and go ahead with the building of the house on the assumption that it would receive a subsidy at a certain rate. Then, perhaps within a few days of the completion of the house, the authority might find that the subsidy had been reduced.
Those are the powers provided by the 1946 Act, in which it is stated:
Subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister may from time to time by order provide in relation to new houses completed after such date…

That is the point. It applied to the date of the completion of the house, whereas this Bill is much more reasonable and applies to the date when tenders are approved. Apart from the question of land, no authority can, under the provisions of this Bill, enter into a financial commitment in respect of the building of a house without knowing in advance what subsidy they will get. That was not possible under the 1946 Act.

Mr. David Weitzinan: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted as a precedent something which was done by the Labour Government which he describes as wrong. Why should that be a justification for the right hon. Gentleman doing something wrong now?

Mr. Sandys: It is a justification for our putting it right. That is what we are doing. We are not repeating that wrong in this Bill; we are not providing that the Minister shall have power to change the subsidy in respect of houses completed after the date of the Order. We are providing that any change in the subsidy shall apply only to houses in respect of which a tender has not been approved before the Order is made.

Mr. Weitzman: It is wrong.

Mr. Sandys: I think I have made myself clear on that point and that I need not go over the matter again. There is no doubt that this Bill gives far more warning than was provided under the 1946 Act.

Mr. W. G. Cove: It is a long way back to 1946.

Mr. Sandys: The provisions of that Act have been operated up to now, and are still operated. Our action is a vast improvement so far as local authorities are concerned.

Mr. A. Evans: Surely the Minister should address himself to the argument. He quotes the 1946 Act, but he will know that conditions then were different from conditions today. He will realise that in this Clause he is taking power to abolish the subsidies entirely, which is an unprecedented step. All we ask is that he should give fair warning. Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to the question of the lack of warning? Will he answer the point that, under the terms of


this Clause, local authorities are faced with the cessation or abolition of the subsidies?

Mr. Sandys: That is a point to which I was addressing myself. The last time he interrupted me the hon. Gentleman was very helpful. He gave me my cue and he must not complain if I dealt with the 1946 Act at length. He provoked me into doing so

Mr. Sparks: It is a very weak point.

Mr. Sandys: I think it is an absolutely overwhelming point and knocks the ground from under the feet of hon. Gentlemen opposite. That is why they wish to get on to some other issue. The attitude of the party opposite today is very different from their attitude when they were in office, and approved the Clause to which I have referred. That was their own provision in the 1946 Act. They did not then want to postpone any reduction of subsidy for a period of two years, as is now proposed.
It is no use saying that this Bill provides that the subsidies can be abolished, and that the 1946 Act provided only that they could be reduced. It is possible to reduce a subsidy to a point where, so far as local authorities are concerned, it would make little difference whether it was reduced or abolished. There is no material difference between the powers provided under this Clause and those provided in the 1946 Act, except that the powers provided in this Clause give a much greater degree of flexibility. In other words, it is possible to reduce the subsidy in respect of certain categories of houses—and not necessarily the precise categories which appear in the Bill—without having to reduce the subsidies in respect of other categories.
I am sure that all hon. Members who wish to preserve a proper balance in this matter, and to ensure that local authorities shall receive subsidies where they are needed, recognise that only advantage can come from providing a measure of flexibility which will avoid the Minister being faced with the issue of reducing all subsidies or none. That tended to be the position, in certain respects, under the 1946 Act. In that case he could reduce only the precise categories defined in the Act—and the whole category or nothing

at all. That is the main difference between that Act and this Bill.
I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that the 1946 Act, besides providing power to reduce the subsidy with the little warning to which I have already referred, also imposed upon the Minister the duty of reviewing the position and reporting to Parliament whether a reduction was desirable. The first such review had to take place in December, 1946, namely, in the same year as that in which the Act was passed. That all showed a fairly good intention on the part of the Government to make quite sure that if any reductions were justified the opportunity would not be missed. [Interruption,] I am talking about the powers provided by the Bill. If the Committee stage is not concerned with a discussion of the terms of the Bill I do not know why we are meeting here. I know that it is uncomfortable for hon. Members opposite to have it pointed out to them how very much more reasonable are the provisions of the Bill than those of the 1946 Act—which is now in force—in the amount of warning given to local authorities.

Mr. Sparks: This Government is the only one which has used those provisions. Nobody else has.

Mr. Sandys: We have certainly not used the Bill, because it is not yet an Act of Parliament. Unlike the 1946 Act the Bill does not lay down any time limit within which the Minister must consider reducing the subsidy.
I have been asked about our intentions. The Committee knows that they are to abolish the £10 subsidy for general needs within a year or so.

Mr. Sparks: What does "within a year or so" mean?

Mr. Sandys: The English language is reasonably plain. I can say "within a year or more," if the hon. Member likes that better. Our intention is not to be too precise.

Mr. Sparks: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman does not, in fact, intend to reduce the subsidy at all?

Mr. Sandys: That was not the meaning which I intended to convey. Our intention is to abolish the £10 subsidy


for general needs within a year or so, and the purpose of the Amendment is to make that impossible in less than two years. We believe that a certain amount of flexibility in all these matters is desirable. We want to see how things go. I am encouraged by the reactions of local authorities so far. I was very much encouraged by the reactions of the Labour Party Conference in St. Pancras a few days ago. It all gives me reasonable confidence that houses which are needed will go on being built quite satisfactorily with the reduced subsidy.
Since the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) would make it impossible for us to abolish or reduce the subsidies—I am speaking particularly of the £10 subsidy for general needs—within the two-year period mentioned in the Amendment, it would deprive us of the flexibility which we believe to be desirable, and for that reason I cannot possibly accept the Amendment.
6.45 p.m.
A second Amendment, which will be voted upon after this one but which we have debated with it, would have the effect of preventing the Minister from making an Order to reduce or abolish any of the subsidies until after 31st March, 1956. As the Committee has seen, I have been literally leaning over backwards to meet the wishes of the party opposite. I have not put any wax in my ears, like Ulysses. I am prepared to listen to the siren songs of hon. Members opposite. As further evidence of my extreme reasonableness, I propose to advise the Committee to accept the Amendment which is to be moved by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine).

Mr. Mitchison: I congratulate the Minister upon accepting any Amendment, considering what he has been doing previously. It shows the beginnings of a repentance which I hope will develop. He will be the first to agree that that step he concurs in is a singularly small one. I am rather tired of this game of"1066 and all that"—or "1946 and all that." Whenever the Government have to justify some provision they get someone to hunt through the Statute Book to try to find another as like it as possible. I shall have very great pleasure in showing the Minister the quite clear distinction not between the language of the 1946 Act

and this Bill but between the circumstances in 1946 and those which obtain today.
In 1946 we had a Labour Government, pledged to build many houses, and obviously and seriously intending to do so.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: But they did not.

Mr. Mitchison: They were in fact embarking, not very long after the end of the war, upon the most comprehensive housing programme that any Government had undertaken. In conjunction with that, they were granting subsidies upon a scale which no previous Government had ever allowed. That was the position in 1946. When everybody knows what is meant, and when everybody knows that the Government are going to carry out what they propose, surely there is some wisdom in taking power to withdraw a little if circumstances subsequently require it?
What is the position now? The Minister has told us—he told us again today and he has said it many times—that he proposes to cut the fundamental, general needs subsidy to nothing at the end of a year or so. That is what the Clause is about, and how it can be said that these provisions are being put forward in circumstances similar to those in 1946 passes my understanding. The Minister's intentions, as explained by him, are strictly dishonourable in this matter. As at present advised, he intends to diminish housing subsidies as far as he can. He is standing there, holding an axe over the heads of the local authorities.
All we are asking of him is that he should give them a little more time. He talks about "a year or so," yet his own Ministry has said that at least three years are required to make the plans. The Minister is refusing to give the local authorities two years' peace before starting to cut again. That is what the Amendment is about. It is not a question of a nice comparison of language between one Act and another, but of whether it is fair and reasonable to local authorities to hold this sort of threat over their heads, and not to give them time to settle down even with the greatly reduced subsidies proposed by the Bill.
Local authorities, big and small, have not the foggiest idea of their financial


situation. They have just had their rateable values completely altered. That is one of the disturbing factors in the position. All their housing programmes have been knocked over and their plans for local development thrown into confusion. If we want to watch a body of men who do not know where they are, let us look at the borough treasurers. There is no borough treasurer who knows the financial position of his authority, or has the faintest idea how to raise the money that it will require, or what the interest position may be in six months or a year. He is deprived of the stability that he has always had hitherto and is flung into a world of uncertainty where he does not know how to get his money, how much he wants, or how much he will get from the Government or for how long.
Recognising that local authorities have to plan ahead for a good deal more than six months, we ask the Minister at least to give them two years' peace to discover their financial position and what they can do in housing. No more reasonable request was ever made to a Minister. Not only do local authorities not know where they are; that is true also of the Government. Do the Government know their financial position? Have they the foggiest idea what their financial position will be in a year? They have told us that they will cut these subsidies to nothing in a year or two. What will the monetary position then be?
These matters have to be reckoned in money; we cannot make them reckonable in terms of beefsteak and bread. The element of money and of average earnings is always used in reckoning housing subsidies. Is it right for the Government to commit themselves and to say, "We shall do this in a year or so," and rush the local authorities, when the Government do not know what the rate of interest will be in a year, what money they will be able to give to the subsidy and, above all, what the needs of the local authorities will be in that respect? What will happen if the Minister finds that the costs of building go up steeply? He will wish he had not introduced the Bill, let alone reduced the subsidy.
He has committed himself already to reduction. We ask him "Take time. Take a moment to breathe. Let the local authorities have a reasonable period to get their

plans and finances in order." From that point of view, are two years too much? All of us who have read the Ministry's Report with the care that was devoted to it by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) think we should ask for three years and not two. Two years are not too much.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: My hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will be very pleased to know that he has now been changed into a siren, and a successful one. It is evident that the Minister has decided to harden his heart against the Amendment which we are asking him to accept. He has said he is surprised at the willingness of local authorities to accept his proposals, but I have a letter from my local authority asking me carefully to watch this Clause and particularly this Amendment.
There is no doubt about the difference between the Bill and Act of 1946, which the Minister has cleverly brought into the debate. They show a difference of approach between the Government and ourselves towards subsidies. We have been told repeatedly by the Tory Party that it is against subsidies when they affect working-class people. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] We have only to see what the party did in relation to the cost of living to know whether that is rubbish or not.
The houses of working-class people will be prevented from being built, under the Bill. That is the intention of the Government. There is no doubt that local authority housing is already being slowed down as a result of the threat of the Bill. The last six months have seen a general slowing down because local authorities do not know where they stand. Housing for the general needs will be particularly affected.
My hon. Friend's have pointed out that local authorities cannot estimate what their general needs are likely to be. There are special cases, such as of eviction and tuberculosis, which come into general housing needs. I can think of special houses which are needed in areas like my own to relieve people whose houses are affected by mining subsidence. These people have to be put into a council house while the National Coal Board puts their houses into decent repair.
When a local authority seeks to employ architects, sanitary inspectors to deal with slum clearance, inspectors under the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, or people for the medical department or the technical colleges, it usually has to offer them housing accommodation. How can a local authority provide houses for these technicians or for cases of tuberculosis or eviction when they are confronted with uncertainty about the subsidy they will receive? When the Labour Government tried to build up their housing programme they were faced with high prices and shortage of labour and materials. In 1946 they endeavoured to make the building of schools and factories go alongside housing development.
7.0 p.m.
Inflation today is not galloping; its speed is supersonic. Local authorities are uncertain about their development

programmes and how long the subsidy will remain or how far it will go. As the Minister has said, the proposal may mean that it will remain for two years or more, but some of us fear that it will remain for only a very short time. Local authorities are also faced with a great financial problem, and the Government's policy of increasing the interest rate has not helped them to decide what to do about houses.

I hope that the Minister will consider once more our request that for two years local authorities should know where they stand, and that for that period he will offer them some certainty and security, so that they can go ahead with their programmes.

Question put, That those words be there inserted: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 211, Noes 252.

Division No. 93.]
AYES
[7.1 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Albu, A. H.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Anderson, Frank
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
King, Dr. H. M.


Awbery, S. S.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lawson, G. M.


Balfour, A.
Fernyhough, E.
Ledger, R. J.


Bartley, P.
Fienburgh, W.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Finch, H. J.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Fletcher, Eric
Lindgren, G. S.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Forman, J. C.
Logan, D. G.


Benson, G.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mabon, Dr. J. D.


Beswick, F.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
MacColl, J. E.


Sevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Gibson, C. W.
McGhee, H. G.


Blackburn, F.
Greenwood, Anthony
Mclnnes, J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Boardman, H.
Grey, C. F.
McLeavy, Frank


Buttomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Bowden, H, W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Bowles, F. G.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mahon, S.


Boyd, T. C.
Hale, Leslie
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvll (Colne Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)


Brock way, A. F.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hannan, W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mason, Roy


Burke, W. A.
Hastings, S.
Mayhew, C. P.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hayman, F. H.
Mellish, R. J.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Messer, Sir F.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Herbison, Miss M.
Mikardo, Ian


Carmichael, J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mltchison, G. R.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Holman, P.
Moody, A. S.


Champion, A. J.
Houghton, Douglas
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Chapman, W. D.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Mort, D. L.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Moyle, A.


Clunie, J.
Hubbard, T. F.
Mulley, F. W.


Coldrick, W.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oliver, G. H.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hunter, A. E.
Oram, A. E.


Cove, W. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Orbach, M.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oswald, T.


Cronin, J. D.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Owen, W. J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Padley, W. E.


Daines, P.
Janner, B.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Dodds, N. N.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn&amp;St.Pnos,S.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Dye, S.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Parker, J.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Parkin, B. T.




Paton, J.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Warbey, W. N.


Pearson, A.
Sheffington, A. M.
Weitzman, D.


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Probert, A. R.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
West, D. G.


Proctor, W. T.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Pryde, D. J.
Sparks, J. A.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Rankin, John
Steele, T.
Wigg, George


Reeves, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Wilkins, W. A.


Reid, William
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)
Williams, David (Neath)


Rhodes, H.
Stones, W. (Consett)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tilery)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Swingler, S. T.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Sylvester, G. O.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Taylor Bernard (Mansfield)
Winterbottom, Richard


Ross, William
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Woodbum, Rt. Hon. A.


Royle, C.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Thornton, E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Short, E. W.
Timmons, J.
Zilliacus, K.


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn



Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Usborne, H. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Holmes and Mr. Deer.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh,W.)


Aitken, W. T.
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Alport, C. J. M.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hyde, Montgomery


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Duthie, W. S.
Iremonger, T. L.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Armstrong, C. W.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Ashton, H.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Atkins, H. E.
Errington, Sir Eric
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Balniel, Lord
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Johnson, Erlc (Blackley)


Banks, Col. C.
Fell, A.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Barber, Anthony
Finlay, Graeme
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Barlow, Sir John
Fisher, Nigel
Kaberry, D.


Barter, John
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Keegan, D.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Fort, R.
Kerr, H. W.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Freeth, D. K.
Kershaw, J. A.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Kirk, P. M.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Gammans, L. D.
Lagden, G. W.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bidgood, J. C.
Glover, D.
Leavey, J. A.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Gough, C. F. H.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Bishop, F. P.
Gower, H. R.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Body, R. F.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Grant-Ferris.Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Green, A.
Longden, Gilbert


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswlck)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Grimond, J.
Luoas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Brooman-White, R. C.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
McAdden, S. J.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Bryan, P.
Gurtien, Harold
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McKibbin, A. J.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Burden, F. F. A.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A.(SaffronWalden)
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Carr, Robert
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn, Harold (Bromley)


Cary, Sir Robert
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maddan, Martin


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Cole, Norman
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Heath, Edward
Marples, A. E.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Marshall, Douglas


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hilt, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Mathew, R.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Mawby, R. L.


Crouch, R. F.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Crowder, Peter (Ruislip—Northwood)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Cunningham, Knox
Holt, A. F.
Molson, A. H. E.


Currie, G. B. H.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P,
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Dance, J. C. G.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Davidson, Viscountess
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Howard, John (Test)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Deedes, W. F.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewlsham, N.)
Neave, Airey


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nicholls, Harmar


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Franham)







Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Robertson, Sir David
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Oakshott, H. D.
Roper, Sir Harold
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


O'Neill, Hn. Phellm (Co. Antrim, N.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Russell, R. S.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Turner, H. F. L.


Osborne, C.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Page, R. G.
Sharpies, R. C.
Vosper, D. F.


Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Shepherd, William
Wade, D. W.


Peyton, J. W. W.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Pickthorn, K. W. M,
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Speir, R. M.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Pitman, I. J.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)
Watklnson, H. A.


Pitt, Miss E. M.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Webbe, Sir H.


Pott, H. P.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Whitelaw, W.S.I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Powell, J. Enoch
Stevens, Geoffrey
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Price, David (Eastlelgh)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Profumo, J. D.
Storey, S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Raikes, Sir Victor
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Woollam, John Victor


Ramsden, J. E.
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Rawlinson, Peter
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)



Redmayne, M.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ridsdale, J. E.
Teeling, W.
Mr. Wills and Mr. Godber.

Amendment made: In page 2, line 21, after "may" insert:
at any time after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-six and thereafter."—[Mr. A. J. Irvine.]

Mr. B. T. Parkin: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, to leave out "or of the site of."
It will have been noticed that the Minister has shown some consideration for authorities who have already embarked upon housing projects to the extent of getting plans submitted and tenders accepted. It is regrettable that he has shown no consideration for those authorities which are in difficulties, usually because of the particular circumstances of their area, over the acquisition of sites. This is a process which takes a very long time and which needs consistency of policy and continuity of support from the Minister if the local authorities are to do their job.
The Committee has discussed, and this side of the Committee has put forward, a series of Amendments asking the Minister to make concessions to delay the operation of the Bill. We on this side have heard with sorrow that he has rejected one concession after another. In this Amendment we are touching on a subject on which he may feel inclined to make a concession, because the operation of his policy in this case works extremely unfairly between one type of local authority and another.
His general national policy is to slow down the building of council houses and the provision of housing accommodation for general need. In this case, either by

accident—at least, I hope it is by accident —or by design he has inflicted a particularly onerous burden on those local authorities whose areas are small and overcrowded and who need to acquire sites which are rare and extremely costly. It is on these two grounds that I am asking for this concession: first, there is the difficulty of finding sites in a borough as small and crowded, for instance, as the borough of Paddington, part of which i represent. Sites become available very rarely, and if they are available a most careful examination has to be made to find out, even if they appear to be suitable for house building or flat building, whether they will be satisfactory for schools and other amenities provided in the neighbourhood. Finding a housing site in a borough is a very different matter from selecting an area of land hitherto undeveloped which can be taken over in a rural area.
The second point I wish to make concerns the appalling cost of sites in areas of this kind. When a local authority has to pay from £50,000 to £75,000 an acre for land, it needs a long time to think it over and needs to be assured of the cooperation of the Ministry, just as the Ministry needs to be assured that it is a right and proper use of that land.
7.15 p.m.
These preliminary processes which are the most important in the housing projects of boroughs like Paddington, are those which take the longest time and which need the most careful preparation. If we are to maintain any semblance of fairness between one type of local authority and another, boroughs like Paddington must


be assured that they will have the support of the Minister and the country as a whole in acquiring the sites, and acquiring them at a proper subsidised rate. After all, it is not entirely the fault of these boroughs that they are called upon to supply a service to the great cities. I have rarely failed, in debates on this Bill or any others connected with housing, to mention, in the hope of getting a reply from the Minister, the subject of the need for high building in Paddington. Of course, this is not only a Paddington problem; it is a national problem. We have to face the fact that great cities require the regular services of a large number of lower paid people to keep them going day and night, and it is nonsense, as a piece of social policy, to assume that we can go on building at a distance and transport these people back and forth every morning and night so that in the winter they never see the daylight and the fresh air in the country districts which they are supposed to be inhabiting.
Sooner or later this Government or the next, or this generation or the next, will have to face the need for new technological and architectural developments in the great cities to house the people who have to do the work of those cities. Here is an opportunity for the Minister to make something of a name for himself in backing these developments.
Technological progress now makes it possible to achieve a new style of high building which has been studied at great length. We have many such experts available who offer their services. Indeed, Paddington enjoys the services of an expert who has been sent all over Europe to study these developments; yet, under the operation of this Minister's policy, this expert is likely to become little more than a slum rent collector in the next few years, unless he is given the opportunity to use the knowledge which he has acquired. These developments cannot take place unless the Minister is prepared to offer help in acquiring the sites, unless he can give a guarantee of continuity and unless he accepts the community's responsibility for providing sites on reasonably equal terms between one housing authority and another. On these grounds, I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Powell: The effect of this Amendment would be to remove from the Bill the power of the Minister to reduce or

to terminate subsidies payable under Clause 6 in respect of expensive sites. I apologise for continuing the lessons on the 1946 Housing Act, which have just been given by my right hon. Friend, but I must draw attention to the fact that in the 1946 Act—which is the current Housing Act—the power equally exists to reduce not only the general standard rate of subsidy but also the rate of subsidy applicable to expensive sites. So, in that respect there is no innovation in the Bill.
It is quite true that the time at which it might be desirable to consider a reduction or abolition of the subsidy in regard to expensive sites will not necessarily be the same as that in regard to other subsidies in the Bill. The Committee will have seen that as Clause 2 is drafted the reduction or abolition can take place in respect of any or any selection of the subsidies provided by the Bill. Nevertheless, it is desirable that the power should be in the Bill.
The subsidy in respect of expensive sites includes an element related to the cost of the development of the site, including the foundation works. If there is a reduction in building costs generally those costs also, presumably, will be affected. But the main reason I put before the Committee is this: this is a Bill of which the two main objects are to achieve slum clearance and the expediting of overspill. If it succeeds in the second of those objects and if over the next few years we have real progress in decongestion of our great cities the necessity for encouraging building upon expensive sites on the scale provided for in this Bill may diminish.

Mr. Sparks: Not in Paddington.

Mr. Powell: If we are setting before ourselves an aim we must envisage the consequences of achieving or making progress towards that aim. If there is substantial progress towards decongestion not only in London but in great cities generally it may well follow that the necessity for this degree of encouragement to build on expensive sites may decline and it would be convenient to have the power to take action to that effect.
May I make a further point. This emphasises again that as Clause 2 is drawn the Minister has great flexibility in his use of the power to reduce and abolish and could do so in any combination of


circumstances, whether locally or in point of time. So the circumstances of areas which the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) has particularly in mind would not be ruled out of account in considering whether to make an Order under Clause 2.

Mr. Parkin: I was very anxious that the Minister's statement should not be interpreted as a policy of his Ministry showing a bias for overspill outwards and a complete rejection of overspill upwards. Would this not be a convenient moment for him to say that he is accepting the fact that overspill outwards is not the complete solution and that he recognises we have to build upwards? I hope that he will at the same time encourage both processes. The words he used rather gave the impression that he was rejecting high building and concentrating on spilling over to the countryside.

Mr. Mitchison: I found that about the most unconvincing Ministerial answer I have every heard. The hon. Gentleman must invent a new Government misstatement of policy. He goes on saying that this is a Bill to encourage slum clearance and overspill. It is nothing of the sort. It is a Bill to cut subsidies and all he has done is. in certain respects, to omit to cut them, with the final result that the total amount of slum clearance will be rather less than it was before but undoubtedly not the complete disappearance of slum clearance, as would be the case if he had treated it as he is treating general needs.
Having answered that one, not for the first time, and trusting that the hon. Gentleman will think of a new one next time, I will not repeat what has already been said about the 1946 Act. The circumstances were entirely different and the point now is that the Minister has told the country that he intends to cut the general needs subsidy in a year or so. But he has not said a word about cutting the subsidy on expensive sites. In the interests of Paddington and other places similarly situated in the middle of big towns, may I ask: does he really intend to do so? The answer so far was the usual Ministerial answer, "Well, it might be necessary to do it, so we will take the power."
I shall have something to say later about the whole of this Clause from that

point of view. If Parliament is asked for a power of this sort the Minister ought to be able to say more than, "I may need to do it if circumstances change sufficiently." Surely the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend ought either to be able to say, "We do need this power because we can see that we shall have to cut the expensive site subsidy"—I earnestly hope the Minister will not say that, he certainly has not said it so far —or,"Having thought the matter over we will confine ourselves to the powers we really need instead of taking a lot which we may or may not need."
It seems to me that the essential point about this expensive site subsidy is that it necessarily requires a lot more previous consideration, planning and negotiation than in the case of any ordinary site. In the nature of the case one is dealing with highly valuable land. One is dealing with land in the middle of big towns where, usually, there is not one but many interests to deal with. One has to consider not merely what is to be done on that particular site but the effect of what one is going to do on the housing, on the industry and on the general layout of the area for which one is responsible.
For all those reasons I should have thought that an expensive site subsidy was essentially one which required more than the stability that is given to the dwellings site. I beg the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman either to accept the Amendment or at least to say to us, "We had not really considered the particular problems of Paddington and such places before. We will think over this matter and see whether we really need the power we are taking here. If we find we do not really need it but only if something improbable happens—like the return of another Tory Government—we might use it." They could then come to Parliament again if and when they find this power is necessary.

Amendment negatived.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, to leave out "the order" and to insert "this Act."
I think it would be convenient to consider at the same time my Amendments in lines 28, 30 and 41.

The Chairman: That is so.

Mr. Irvine: This is in the nature of a drafting point and, as such, it is not without importance. As the Bill is worded, the Minister may make an order
in respect of…dwellings of any description specified in the order.
This has the result that, on a strict view, it is open to the Minister to put all kinds of arbitrary descriptions in the order. I am sure that that is not his intention and is not likely to be the intention of any Minister for a long time to come, but as reference has been made to the desirability of getting the terms of the Bill correct and properly conveying the intentions of Parliament, it seems desirable that this loose wording and this opportunity of arbitrariness on the part of the Minister should be avoided.
As the Bill is drafted, it is open to the Minister to make an order reducing the subsidies for houses of any description specified in the order—it might be, for example, houses lived in by redheads or houses dwelt in by ex-Cabinet Ministers. He can make any kind of arbitrary and senseless description. I hope that the Government will desire to avoid this. It is a sloppy piece of draftsmanship.
I have no doubt that what is intended is that there shall be set out in the order the descriptive words describing particular categories of dwelling which are referred to elsewhere in the Bill. My Amendment? suggests that the best way of overcoming this difficulty is to provide that in the order the Minister should refer only to a specific class of dwelling in categories which are referred to and described elsewhere in the Bill and there appear. There may be other ways round the difficulty, but the difficulty is a real one.
I am grateful for the opportunity of raising the point. There are more important matters to be determined, and I raise the question because I have every hope that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will be good enough to consider the proposal and its merits. If I could be sure that they will do this, I would not desire to press the Amendment.

Mr. Powell: I suggest that the Clause is not drawn sloppily but is convenient for certain practical purposes. As the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) indicated, it enables the Minister, in the order which reduces or abolishes subsidy, to subdivide the categories specifically mentioned in the Act and to

reduce or abolish the subsidy in respect of part only of any of the descriptions specified in the Act.
I can say at once that the wording would not permit the Minister, as the hon. Member perhaps jocularly suggested, to discriminate against any class of tenant, because the words of the Clause are
dwellings of any description specified in the order.
Circumstances can readily be conceived in which power to subdivide descriptions would be useful. For example, the overspill subsidy may lose its relevance and utility in some parts of the country long before it does in other parts. It may, therefore, be convenient to narrow its operation to the areas where there is still a congestion problem.
To take the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), we can look forward to progress in building techniques which will alter the cost factors in high buildings and thus alter the considerations upon which the expensive site subsidy in Clause 6 is constructed. Account could not be taken of those technical changes and of that technological progress unless there were the power to subdivide the description in Clause 6 in the making of an order reducing the subsidy.

Mr. Bevan: I do not quite follow. Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain further? He says that an order might be made de-limiting an area, but an overspill scheme has to be classified as such before it can attract subsidy. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's purposes would be met merely by refusing to consider a certain scheme as an overspill scheme. There is no need to limit the order to a particular part of the country to achieve that result.

Mr. Powell: I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that administratively the operation of the relevant paragraphs of Clause 3 (3) could be limited. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there can be circumstances, of which I have given other examples, in which a subdivision of the category could be useful. As the House has, after all, to approve the order affirmatively, we can rely upon any future House of Commons to restrain a Minister from using this power in a discriminatory or unreasonable manner. I suggest, therefore, that


the Committee should not deprive itself of a potentially convenient form of drafting.

Mr. Irvine: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Mitchison: My next two Amendments, in page 2, lines 24 and 28, are intended to limit the Minister's powers under the Clause, in the one case by depriving him of the power to eliminate subsidies altogether, and in the other case by setting a time and quantity limit to the stages of reduction. The substantial point has already been put in the discussion on the first Amendment to the Clause and, in view of the Minister's declared attitude on that, I see no purpose in moving these Amendments.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no order shall be made by the Minister under this section in respect of dwellings provided by a local authority in the exercise of their powers to provide housing accommodation (or by a development corporation or housing association in pursuance of authorised arrangements with that local authority) and for the purpose of rehousing persons displaced in order to abate overcrowding.
The purpose of the Amendment is to endeavour to put into the Bill some restraint upon the Minister, who may at some time or other decide to abolish the general subsidy in respect of a category of housing which is important in many areas of the country. I refer to the provision of housing for the purpose of mitigating overcrowding.
I know that an attempt has been made to retain the higher rate of subsidy for housing built for that purpose, but it has not been successful. My colleagues and I, therefore, are asking for much less. We are prepared to accept the lower rate of general housing subsidy for this essential purpose, and we are asking that the Minister shall at no time do away with that general subsidy for this purpose.
I plead my cause with some seriousness. Before the war, there were two categories of housing for which subsidies were payable. One was for slum clearance which the Minister, of course, is now treating with due respect. The other was for the relief of overcrowding. I regret to say that the same respect is not being

accorded to that part of the general housing problem of local authorities. It would be fair to say that in certain parts of the country the slum clearance problem is more serious than the problem of overcrowding, but London, for example, has perhaps a much smaller problem of slum clearance than is the case in some parts of the Provinces, yet nevertheless has an extraordinarily big problem of overcrowding.
We have been anxious to combat overcrowding since long before the war. It was not possible even in those days to-have a standard applied to overcrowding which would meet the requirements of the people, but during and since the war the whole matter has had to go by the board. The local authorities simply cannot insist upon their own and other landlords' properties being relieved of overcrowding.
I hope that the Minister, having seen the Amendment and realised its humble nature, will be prepared to give further consideration to it, if he has not already come to a decision, and will do something to reassure local authorities. The problem must be before the Ministry as before the local authorities, but the local authorities are afraid that at a convenient moment the subsidy will not be available when they want to get on with tackling the problem.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) has reminded the Committee that from 1935 until the outbreak of the war there were two types of subsidy running, as it were, in parallel—the subsidy directed to assist slum clearance and the subsidy directed to combat overcrowding. In this Bill, while a preferential position is accorded to the rehousing of persons from unfit houses, overcrowding falls to be dealt with as part of the general operations of local authorities for meeting general housing needs. The hon. Lady asks what is the reason for the difference of treatment.
In the first place, the scale of the two problems has altered very greatly since the 1935 Act first introduced a specific subsidy to assist in the relief of overcrowding. The survey which was carried out, following that Act, in 1936 showed that 340,000 dwellings were at that time overcrowded within the statutory definition. So far as can be adduced from the 1 per cent. sample of the 1951 Census,


the number of families then overcrowded in approximately the same degree—and I am advised that the degree is probably slightly less than the statutory definition of overcrowding—has fallen to 218,000.
Since then, of course, a further 1½million dwellings have been provided, so that it is reasonable to presume that the numbers of overcrowded families are now substantially lower than they were in 1951. Therefore, there is that first difference between the position as it stood 20 years ago and as it stands today—that the scale of overcrowding, its proportion in the general housing problem, is much less and that the figures afford reasonable hope that it is diminishing.
7.45 p.m.
The second reason relates to the manner by which local housing authorities proceed in meeting the needs of their local areas. Most local authorities, in fact, take overcrowding heavily into account in the allocation of tenancies, and all have the power to do so. Therefore, local authorities, in allocating their houses today as they come off the production line, are directing their attention specifically to the diminution of overcrowding and, as long as they have priority lists and points of allocation, most of them will continue to do so.
On the other hand, they have not the same facilities for concentrating through the general housing waiting list upon the slum problem because, as hon. Members know, very often a family in a slum house will rank very low, even if it appears at all, on a local housing authority's list of priorities. Therefore, there is that logical justification for regarding the combating of overcrowding as part of the provision of the general housing needs while concentrating specifically upon the removal of unfit houses.
I ask the Committee also to take this point into account. While local authorities can voluntarily and usually do take overcrowding heavily into account in allocating their tenancies, if Parliament legislates on overcrowding and attaches subsidies and obligations to the relief of overcrowding it must do as it did in 1935, and make overcrowding a statutory offence. It is doubtful whether at the present time it would be practicable, or whether it would be helpful for local housing authorities, to do so.
Therefore, as the two hang together—the proceeding against overcrowding as an offence and the specifying of the relief of overcrowding as an object in a housing Bill—I feel that the Committee would be well advised to leave overcrowding to be dealt with, as it is being not unsuccessfully dealt with at present, by local authorities in the operation of their general housing powers while concentrating, as the Bill does, on the removal of unfit houses.

Mr. Mitchison: The Amendment is designed to deal with the question whether or not subsidies in aid of the relief of overcrowding should be reduced or eliminated. Very good reasons were put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) for that not being done. On the other hand, we had a full debate on the question of overcrowding on an Amendment to Clause 1, upon which the Parliamentary Secretary could very properly have made the speech which he has just made. It was quite in order for him to make it now as it would have been quite in order for him to have made it then. We won such a signal victory in the debate on overcrowding, though it failed to result in the Minister accepting the Amendment, that I should think it somewhat tedious to repeat the reasons which we gave then for giving a special place to subsidies for overcrowding.

Mrs. Corbet: I do not like to pursue this matter much further, because I appreciate that the Committee has spent some time on the subject. I appreciate the figures which the Parliamentary Secretary has given and I can understand how they have been arrived at. Nevertheless, I am well aware that there is now a great deal more overcrowding in certain respects. The census in taking account of the number of rooms in a house omits the other information, namely, that a family of four or five which has only one room is really overcrowded, although the house may not appear to be so as far as all the occupants in it are concerned.
The local authorities, if they are to deal with that problem, have to provide general housing. They may have to do it in the future without any subsidy at all. I assure the Minister that the picture is not nearly as rosy as the census makes it appear to be. I think that what we were anxious to do before the war,


namely, to make overcrowding an offence, should again be one of our objectives. I know that we want to get rid of unfit buildings, but we also want to get rid of overcrowded lettings both by public and private owners.
I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that before he does anything about abolishing the subsidy he will consult the local authorities on this point, so that he may obtain their views and see how he might possibly be able to assist them. If the Minister can give me that assurance I shall be very happy to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Sandys: I can, of course, give the hon. Lady the assurance, because consultation with the local authority associations is provided for in this Clause.

Mrs. Corbet: With some sympathy, I hope, to the points which I have been making.

Mr. Sandys: Always with sympathy.

Mrs. Corbet: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I do not intend, Sir Charles, to move the Amendment in my name, in page 2, line 28, because it again raises the merits of the Bill, which we discussed at length on Clause 1. I do not think that I would be warranted in taking up the time of the Committee and, therefore, I desire not to move the Amendment.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, at the end, to insert:
or to any site, which is purchased or agreed to be purchased or in respect of which a compulsory purchase order is confirmed on or after that date.
We have already had a fairly full discussion on the wider issue of including in this Clause the power to cancel or alter the site subsidy as opposed to the dwelling subsidy. Therefore, I am sure that it would be out of order to go over that ground again. The point which I want to make is much more a point of procedure. It is a very much narrower and perhaps more technical point than the more general issue of policy which the Committee has already decided.
I am still not really clear in my mind why we have the words:
…or of the site of,…

in line 22, which are not in the 1946 Act and which are a notable departure from that Act. But on the assumption that there is some good reason for keeping them in and that there is to be some action taken in regard to the site subsidies, apart from action in regard to the total subsidy on the dwellings, what I am pleading for, more or less, is further notice to the authorities of the Minister's intention.
Whatever may be the argument for saying that the change in the subsidy on the dwelling should take place on the acceptance of the tender or on the approval or the application for loan sanction or whatever may be the particular stage, all these stages in a housing operation are usually very much closer together than the acquisition of the site. The acquisition of the site takes place some considerable time before the final decisions are taken about construction and building, and before there can be any question of preparing specifications and going out to tender on the building.
I am suggesting that if the Minister intends suddenly to intervene and upset the Bill or alter in any material way the basis of the subsidy it is very hard on the more prudent authorities. Apparently, the Minister has never heard of the wise and the foolish virgins, or if he has heard of them he has by unilateral action decided to express his approval of the foolish virgins rather than of the wise. The wise authority plans many years ahead its housing porgramme and thinks, "In five years' time I shall want to develop this site. I had better start acquiring it, prepare a plan, get the sewers laid down, and so on."
In other words, the authority which does not live from hand to mouth, but tries to plan its capital expenditure and housing programme in a farsighted way will be far more badly caught by a change of policy on the part of the Minister under this Clause than the foolish council which goes about things in a slapdash way and suddenly decides, "Next year we must do something where we can," grabs a convenient piece of land which is very often not the best land available for quick development.
Therefore, any decision which the Minister makes to alter unilaterally the basis of agreement between the Minister and the local authority about the financial assistance which is to be given should


only apply in the case of land which is acquired after the date of that action being taken. That would seem to be an eminently reasonable point of view, and one that will encourage the wise and prudent authority, which I am sure is what the Minister wants to do. I hope it will be possible for him to accept an Amendment on this or on comparable, lines, which I am sure will work for the smoothness of the planning of housing. Even if the Minister is determined to do a great deal of damage to municipal housing, I am sure that within the field that is left he wants it to go as smoothy and efficiently as possible.

Mr. Powell: I do not wish, any more than the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), to go back over our lengthy debates of the King Charles's head of Section 16 of the 1946 Housing Act. I think that the Committee by now realises that a reduction of subsidy under that Section being attached to the completion of houses bit at a much later stage in the incubation of local authority houses than does the reduction under Clause 2, which is attached to the acceptance of a tender or estimate. So that although the much earlier date still, which the hon. Member has in mind, namely the acquisition of the site or even the preparation to acquire the site, is not covered by Clause 2, all the less was it covered by Section 16 of the 1946 Act which is the law at the moment.
The hon. Member has himself pointed out that the prudent local authority acquires land three years or more in advance of actually beginning building operations. To accept this Amendment would, therefore, mean that no alteration in the subsidies could become effective for at least three and possibly more years after the making of the Order.

Mr. MacColl: On the site.

Mr. Powell: Yes. The houses would not be built on the site for three or four or even more years after the making of the Order, the operation of which would be delayed by that amount of time, which is clearly quite out of keeping with my right hon. Friend's policy and with the intention underlying the Bill. But there is no need for local housing authorities to be anxious.
8.0 p.m.
Supposing the local housing authority has bought a site in advance of requirements and then decides, after reduction or abolition of the subsidy and, in view of the general housing situation in its area, that it does not want to use this for housing, the possession of that site is no burden on the ratepayers of that area because the site can be disposed of again. And as it has been bought, at most, at market value, it can presumably be disposed of again at market value. So there is no reason to think that authorities which acquire sites in good time can conceivably be exposed to risk by the fact that the subsidies are reduced or abolished after acquisition of those sites.
Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject an Amendment which, in effect, largely frustrates the intention of the Clause.

Mr. Mitchison: I must be getting unduly critical of the hon. Gentleman, but I find his replies more and more unconvincing. In this Clause the Minister has recognised the principle that, when the preparations for the building of the dwelling have reached a certain stage, he ought not to go back on what the local authorities, relying on the existing subsidies, have done. We can argue about whether the time limit is long enough; we can argue, of course, about the merits of the Clause; but there can be no dispute that something of the kind is necessary now for dwellings.
I am not going back to King Charles's head, but the 1946 Housing Act was introduced in entirely different circumstances. The Clause in question was very little used, and I find it the worst argument for a Measure which is proposed now in wholly different circumstances, and for a wholly different purpose, that there is a parallel in the Act of 1946. It seems to me to be proving that rabbits have four legs by saying that elephants have them. They are both animals but there are differences. Equally there are differences between the position in 1946 and the intentions of the Government at that time and the position now and the intentions of the Government today.

Mr. Sandys: Rabbits do have four legs.

Mr. Mitchison: Of course they have, except those with myxomatosis, and I do not know what happens to them. If such a limit is necessary for dwellings, why is it not necessary for expensive sites? I do


not necessarily want to press the Minister to take the exact limit proposed in this Amendment, though it seems to me to be perfectly reasonable in the case of expensive sites, which is what we are talking about. However, I press him to think again before refusing to put in some limit on the expensive site subsidy. Otherwise the right hon. Gentleman will put the local authorities in an impossible position when they are negotiating about sites, when they may even have bought them or agreed to buy them.
I cannot resist the impression, not necessarily that someone has forgotten to put in a time limit about expensive sites, but that the point has not received careful consideration. This is not a very contentious matter, but it may make a great difference to some local authorities. So I ask the Minister whether he will not give the Committee an undertaking to reconsider the question of some time limit on the expensive sites in order to make it easier for local authorities to carry out their work. If legislation is to be introduced we are all anxious that this should be done with the minimum of unnecessary friction between the central government and local authorities.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Mitchison: I am disappointed with the course taken by the discussion and the statements of the Minister on this Clause. I realise that the Clause raises the entire principle of the Bill, that in effect it is the second step, or the preparations for the second step, in what the Minister proposes to do. Therefore, to some extent, anything one says about it is repetition of the criticisms that were made on Second Reading.
On the other hand, the Minister is seeking comprehensive powers. The right hon. Gentleman may say that they were sought in 1946, but I have already given the answer that both the circumstances of the time, one year after the war, and the intentions of the Government were entirely different in those days. The Minister tells us he wants this Clause to enable him to reduce the general need subsidy to nothing in a year or so. From the refusal of our Amendments we have gathered he also wants it in order to make

certain other changes by way of reducing or eliminating other subsidies.
We have been told nothing definite about those further intentions. The Minister may be able to tell us tonight, but I regard it as constitutionally unsatisfactory if, when such a statement has been made, the Minister in charge of the Bill does not face the need for having a second Bill when the occasion arises, instead of taking general powers of this kind. The Minister could have done much of what is proposed in the Bill by administrative action. It would be out of place to go into details, but the right hon. Gentleman has recognised clearly the necessity for a Bill for making the present reductions in subsidies, and this constitutes a sweeping change not only as regards local authorities but as regards housing the people in this country who need houses, whether it is a general need or a particular one in connection with slum clearance, overcrowding, or whatever the ill may be.
The Minister has recognised that, and I should have thought that instead of taking these powers the right thing to do would be to come forward again, if and when the occasion arises, with a Bill either to reduce or, dare we hope, to restore the subsidies which will have been removed by this Bill. It would be unusual for the Minister to take power for the restoration of subsidies in this Bill, but in any case he has shut the door on that course. He has left open only the possibility of a reduction or elimination, and with a cynical attitude, in view of some of the protestations of the Government, he has refused even to contemplate the possibility that the country may be able to afford an increase in these subsidies in the future.
The Minister has said to the local authorities, "Whatever happens to the cost of building, however far inflation may go"—the existence of which everybody recognises and, certainly, the Tory Government—"I will not in any circumstances meet the real needs of local authorities by restoring the subsidies." A short time ago the Minister was taunting the Labour Government with maintaining housing subsidies at a given monetary figure in spite of the rise in prices. The rise in prices is here today. The rise in building costs is here today. The rise in prices is at least as acute as it was immediately after the war, and without the


good excuse for it then, that it was just after the war. The only reason for the present rise appears to be the persistent policy of the Tory Government.
Yet in spite of that rise in prices, in spite of that rise in building costs, the only thing that the Minister proposes to do is to cut still further the housing subsidies, to add to the cut already made by the increasing fall in the value of money the monetary cut which he proposes to put into effect in a year's time. We have been told singularly little about it. If the Minister is going to do any more than he has threatened to do, which is to eliminate the general needs subsidy—that is bad enough—he ought to tell us what sort of use he proposes to make of the Clause and when he proposes to make that use of it.
I am sorely disappointed that he has refused to leave the local authorities at peace and, that the Sword of Damocles will hang over their heads from the end of March. I am equally disappointed at the Minister's refusal to accept our Amendment which would have afforded some protection in the buying of expensive sites. The only Amendment which has been accepted has been a minor one, though the intention of all of them was to make the work of local authorities easier.
If that is the attitude in which the right hon. Gentleman persists, he must not be surprised if the definite hostility which the local authority associations have shown towards the Bill hitherto is maintained and even aggravated. I hope he will be able to give us an assurance that, in spite of having rejected the Amendments placed before him, he will at a later stage consider the questions of principle which have been raised and bring forward an Amendment on Report to meet those points. Failing that, we regard this as a very serious matter indeed. However, let us hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.

Mr. Sparks: I support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in his opposition to the Clause, first of all, because it is a most reactionary Clause, and, secondly, because it sounds the death knell of housing for general needs by local authorities.
If we ask ourselves why the principle of subsidies was ever introduced into the building by local authorities of housing

accommodation for their people, the answer is that it was because private enterprise was unable to provide what was required. Private enterprise kept our people in slums, in insanitary dwellings and in hovels, and the housing problem of the country got worse and worse until even a Tory Government had to recognise that, if it wanted to stave off what might well have been a revolutionary situation aimed against the social conditions of the people, something had to be done to provide better housing accommodation.
Consequently, the Government were compelled to encourage local authorities to take over the work which private enterprise had completely failed to do for the simple reason that there was not enough money in it. If private enterprise cannot make a profit, it is not interested in supplying people with anything. Though people might be badly housed, private enterprise considered it of no concern unless it could make money out of it.
8.15 p.m.
That situation applies today. I and other hon. Members representing constituencies in the Greater London area, and also in other large cities, know that private enterprise is completely unable to provide the necessary housing accommodation for our lower income groups. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to wages and salaries being higher than they were, but he very conveniently forgot to mention that the cost of living has also gone up considerably and is galloping forward every day as a result of the Government's policy. Despite the fact that wages have risen, we still have low income groups, and when we consider the purchasing power which even high wages provide, we can appreciate that the question of rent is a very important one. The purpose of paying a subsidy is to make it possible for people in the lower income groups to live in decent accommodation at rents which they can afford.
Earlier the Opposition moved an Amendment, which was rejected by the Minister, in an endeavour to continue the subsidies in areas of comprehensive development under the Town and Country Planning Acts. The answer of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary clearly showed that they did not understand the problem in the slightest degree. I believe that the passing of Clauses 1


and 2 will very largely sound the death-knell of good planning throughout the country. I believe that the position of most local authorities will be as follows. If they are expected to carry out the provisions of their development plan and they have people to be re-housed, the hon. Gentleman has said that it will be all right for them to re-house people who are in unfit slum houses, for which they will receive a subsidy, although they will not receive a subsidy for any other housing. That does not solve the problem. The problem is that as a rule in an area of comprehensive development the houses are old ones; they may not be slums technically, but they are not far from it. They may be low-rented old houses.
My constituency is carrying out part of its redevelopment plan and redeveloping an area of bad lay-out, there being poor housing mixed up with small industries. Many houses will be pulled down. People are paying 15s., £1, and in some cases 25s. per week for these houses. We hope to re-house these people somewhere else in the borough if we can find the land. If the subsidy goes, the economic rent of a three-roomed house will be £3 15s. per week. Thus these people will be expected to pay £2 per week more than their present rent. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying that the £2 per week can be spread over all the other tenants living in the area. There is a limit beyond which one cannot go. The hon. Gentleman said that he was opposed to the pulling down of houses unless they really were slums. Apart from the technicalities, a local authority has to face the problem from the human point of view. How can it proceed to carry out its development plan knowing full well that a number of people will be displaced from homes for which they are paying perhaps 25s. per week and will be forced into a council flat at £3 15s. per week? As a consequence it will be found that the Bill will be a death blow to redevelopment under the development plans of the planning authorities.
I hope that the Committee will reject the Clause for those reasons and because it will throw into absolute chaos the housing schemes of local authorities. I do not for a moment accept the Minister's argument that because in the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions)

Act, 1946, provision was made for the subsidies to be terminated without adequate notice that it can be included in this Act. That provision was never exercised. I do not know whether the Minister regarded it as a good thing or as a bad thing. He did not say. He evidently thinks that it is a good thing, because he has taken these powers. If it was a good thing, why is he trying to argue that it was bad?
In any case in 1946 the position was totally different from what it is now. We were not proposing to abolish housing subsidies. After the war when we were again starting our housing construction subsidies were very important, and I can easily understand the Government in those earlier years laying down such a provision because of the uncertainties that then existed. In 1946 there was no intention to reduce or abolish subsidies. Today the Minister is using that power to extinguish subsidies on housing for general purposes.
Whether or not the provision appeared in the 1946 Act, it is right and honourable to give local authorities at least a minimum period in which to think out their plans in the light of the provisions of the Bill and to arrange their finances to avoid a state of chaos in their housing programmes as a result of the uncertainty which must arise. I certainly did not see the point of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). It was a pretty weak argument to say that if a local authority bought a piece of land and found that it could not use it because it did not have the subsidy that it could sell the land.
A local authority cannot acquire land unless the right hon. Gentleman gives his approval and approves not only the purchase, but the purpose for which the land is acquired. He therefore has a moral responsibility when a local authority purchases land. He gives permission and sanctions the use of the land. In many cases in built-up areas it is anti-social to suggest that a local authority, having acquired a piece of land, should dispose of it for purposes other than housing.
In areas where there is plenty of land and where it can be bought without difficulty and where the price is reasonably low, this difficulty does not arise. But in


built-up areas where land values are very high and where there is a shortage of land it is most anti-social to suggest that local authorities should dispose of a valuable piece of land to anybody who likes to come along, instead of using it to meet housing needs. For that and other reasons which I have advanced, I hope that the Committee will reject the Clause. It is reactionary and certainly sounds the death knell of housing schemes for general purposes by the local authorities.

Mr. A. Evans: This is a dangerous Clause and I am sure that Her Majesty's Opposition will do its duty in going into the Lobby against it. If the House of Commons were to do its duty tonight it would refuse the wide powers which the Clause gives to the Minister. During our discussions on the Clause I have learned that the Minister proposes entirely to abolish the general subsidy in a period of "a year or so," to use his own words. At least, local authorities are now warned that the Minister proposes entirely to abolish the general housing subsidy within, say, 18 months. That local authorities should have received that warning is one gain from our discussions.
The Minister also mentioned that he did not propose to use the powers of abolition to abolish the subsidy on slum clearance and dwellings to replace slums. That was a rather significant submission, for it implied that the Clause gives him the power to abolish even the subsidy upon slum clearance and the provision of houses to take the place of slums cleared away. There is no doubt about that. The Minister even admitted that he was taking power to abolish the subsidy for slum clearance. Those powers are far too sweeping for any Minister to take, particularly the present Minister. With all respect, I do not believe that he really understands the fundamentals of our housing conditions and problems in this country.
Despite all the discouragement which the Bill will give to local authorities, I believe that those with Socialist majorities will, at any rate, continue to build as many houses as they can for the people who need them. In following their duty, councils will do all they can to build despite the handicaps, the reduction of

subsidies and their final abolition. Inevitably, under these financial conditions and with the increased price of money, rents of these dwellings, even with differential rent schemes, must rise.
In due course, before the normal term of the Government is concluded, the Government will find that the consequences of their action will come home to them, because higher rents will awaken the people to the mercenary attitude which the Government have adopted towards the rehousing of the people. I shall have very great pleasure in voting against the Clause.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: Since I understand from hon. Members opposite that they have already made up their minds to vote against this Clause, I do not think that I need waste very much time in attempting to convince them or to change their opinions. I was interested in a remark of the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) which was absolutely true but which has not been mentioned by any other hon. Member opposite. He said he supposed, that, despite the reductions in subsidy, local authorities would go on building all the houses they needed for their people—

Mr. A. Evans: All the houses they can.

Mr. Sandys: All the houses they can, and there is nothing to prevent them from building the houses they need—

Mr. Gibson: Yes there is—5¼ per cent.

Mr. Sandys: It depends whether they consider the need to be serious.

Mr. Sparks: And whether the rents can be paid.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) both covered much the same ground in their speeches—I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was somewhat more concise than his hon. Friend. They complained that this Bill provides the Minister with powers which are too extensive in order to reduce or abolish the subsidies. This Bill must be looked at against the background of the Government's policy regarding subsidies. It is part of that policy that the subsidy for general needs shall be abolished within a fairly short time.

Mr. Sparks: It is a bad policy.

Mr. Sandys: We believe that after a comparatively short transitional period, in which local authorities will have the opportunity to adjust themselves to the new conditions, it should be possible for the subsidy for general needs—now being reduced from £22 to £10—to be abolished altogether. It is against that policy that the provisions of the Bill must be viewed, and it is absurd to suggest that the Bill should not provide the powers needed to carry out this policy. Obviously, one of these powers is that of reducing and abolishing the subsidies.
I know hon. Members have made a distinction between the power to abolish the subsidy for general housing needs and the power to abolish subsidies for other purposes, such as slum clearance, overspill, new towns and so forth. At present the Government have no plans to reduce the subsidies for those purposes. But we cannot say that circumstances will no: justify some reduction at a future date, and in bringing in this new comprehensive Bill to replace the existing legislation on the subject, we feel it right to provide flexibility. The powers provided are subject to affirmative Resolution by the House of Commons, and so it is clear that Parliament retains control.
The 1946 Act did not provide any of the limitations asked for in the debates on the proposed Amendments to this Clause, and I see no good reason for introducing them here.

Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to tell the Committee that the Government have at present no plans for reducing any other subsidies than the general needs subsidy. If they have no such plans, is he sure that they ought to take the powers which they are taking to reduce those other subsidies, including the site subsidy, which we have been particularly discussing, and the subsidies for over-spill, new towns and others which he mentioned?

Mr. Sandys: I do not suppose that the hon. Members who have been taking

part in these debates would desire to have housing subsidy Bills introduced very frequently. As this legislation is being introduced, it seems desirable that it should provide for all circumstances which might arise. I cannot say that it will not be necessary or desirable to make changes in other subsidies at some future date. All I am saying is that we have no plans at present to do so. I think that it would be undesirable to leave any part of the structure rigidly fixed by legislation and incapable of adjustment by Order, subject to a Resolution and debate in the House, as has been the practice in regard to housing subsidies under previous legislation.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: When the Minister says "changes," I take it he means reductions.

Mr. Sandys: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, because I was criticised earlier, by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering when he said that the only thing which is provided for here is the power to reduce or to abolish. As hon. Members know well, legislation of this kind never provides the power to increase a charge. That is why the question of an increase just does not arise.

Mr. Mitchison: I recognise the point which the right hon. Gentleman has just made, but I deplore the taking of powers to this extent in these circumstances. If more is proposed, we ought at least to be told what it is, but if, as the right hon. Gentleman says—and, of course, I accept it—the Government have no present plans to reduce any other subsidies, they are asking altogether too much by taking these powers to do so in their present form. I am not impressed with the parallel that is sought to be drawn to the 1946 Act. For those reasons we propose to divide against the Clause.

Question put, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 251, Noes 205.

Division No. 94.]
AYES
[8.36 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Armstrong, C. W.
Barter, John


Aitken, W. T.
Ashton, H.
Baxter, Sir Beverley


Alport, C. J. M.
Atkins, H. E.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Balniel, Lord
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Banks, Col. C.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Barlow, Sir John
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)




Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chrch)


Bidgood, J. C.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Blggs-Davison, J. A.
Heath, Edward
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Oakshott, H. D.


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Body, R. F.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Hlnohingbrooke, Viscount
Orr, Capt. L. P. 8.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Osborne, C.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A,
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Page, R. G.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Holt, A. F.
Panned, N. A. (Klrkdale)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hope, Lord John
Peyton, J. W. W.


Brocman-White, R. C.
Homsby-Smith, Mist M. P.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Horobin, Sir Ian
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bryan, P.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Pitman, 1. J.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bullus, Wing Commander C. E.
Howard, John (Test)
Pott, H. P.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(SaffronWalden)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Profumo, J. D.


Carr, Robert
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh,W.)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Cary, Sir Robert
Hutchison, James (Sootstoun)
Ramsden, J. E.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hyde, Montgomery
Rawlinson, Peter


Clarke, Brig. Terence (pcrtsmth, W.)
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Redmayne, M.


Cole, Norman,
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, D. L. M.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Roper, Sir Harold


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cunningham, Knox
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Russell, R. S.


Currie, G. B. H.
Kaberry, D.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Dance, J. C. G.
Keegan, D.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Davidson, Viscountess
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Sharpies, R. C.


Davies,Rt.Hon.Clement(Montgomery)
Kerr, H. W.
Shepherd, William


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kirk, P. M.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Deedes, w. F.
Lagden, G. W.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Dlgby, Simon Wingfield
Lambert, Hon. G.
Speir, R. M.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Leavey, J. A.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Drayson, G. B.
Legge-Bourke, Ma]. E. A. H.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, 8.)


Duthie, W. S
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Storey, S,


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lloyd, MaJ. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)


Errlngton, Sir Eric
Lloyd-George, Ma], Rt. Hon. G.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Fell, A.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Teeling, W.


Finlay, Graeme
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Fisher, Nigel
McAdden, S. J.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Maodonald, Sir Peter
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Fort, R.
McKibbin, A. J.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Freeth, D. K.
Mackle, J. H. (Calloway)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Gammans, L. D.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Turner, H. F. L.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield,W.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maomillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Vane, W. M. F.


Glover, D.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maddan, Martin
Vosper, D. F.


Gough, C. F. H.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Wade, D. W.


Gower, H. R,
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.(Nantwioh)
Marples, A. E.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Green, A.
Marshall, Douglas
Webbe, Sir H.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mathew, R.
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Grimond, J.
Mawby, R. L.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, s.)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Gurden, Harold
Molson, A. H. E.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Woollam, John Victor


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Harris, Frederio (Croydon, N.W.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.



Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nairn, D. L. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Neave, Airey
Mr. Godber and Mr. Barber.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nicholls, Harmar








NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hale, Leslie
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Albu, A. H.
Hamilton, W. W.
Pargiter, G. A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hannan, W.
Parker, J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Parkin B. T.


Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)
Hastings, S.
Paton, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Hayman, F. H.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bacon, Miss Alice
Healey, Denis
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Balfour, A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bartley, P.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Probert, A. R.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Holman, P.
Proctor, W. T.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Houghton, Douglas
Pryde, D. J.


Benson, G.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Rankin, John


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Reeves, J.


Blackburn, F.
Hoy, J. H.
Reid, William


Blenkinsop, A.
Hubbard, T. F.
Rhodes, H.


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, H. w. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowles, F. G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Boyd, T. C.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Ross, William


Brockway, A. F.
Janner, B.
Royie, C.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Short, E. W.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp;St.Pncs,S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Skeffington, A. M.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Carmichael, J.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sorensen, R, W.


Champion, A. J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Chapman, W. D.
Lawson, G. M.
Steele, T.


Clunie, J.
Ledger, R. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Coldrick, W.
Lee, Frederiok (Newton)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Lindgren, G. S.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Logan, D. G.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Mabon, Dr. J. D.
Sylvester, G. 0.


Cronin, J. D.
MaoColl, J. E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Daines, P.
Mclnnes, J.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thornton, E.


Deer, G.
MoLeavy, Frank
Timmons, J.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Dodds, N. N.
Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Usborne, H, C.


Dye, S.
Mahon, S.
Warbey, W. N.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mason, Roy
West, D. G.


Edwards, w. J. (Stepney)
Mayhew, C. P.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mellish, R. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mikardo, Ian
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mitohison, G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Fernyhough, E.
Moody, A. S.
Williams, David (Neath)


Flenburgh, W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Finch, H. J.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Fletcher, Erlc
Moyle, A.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Forman, J. C.
Mulley, F. W.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N,
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gibson, C. W.
Oram, A. E.
Winterbottom, Richard


Greenwood, Anthony
Orbach, M.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Oswald, T.
rates, V. (Ladywood)


Grey, C. F,
Owen, W. J.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Padley, W. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)



Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Palmer, A. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes

Clause 3.—(RATE OF SUBSIDIES FOR DWELLINGS.)

8.45 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, to leave out paragraph (c).
The purpose of the Amendment is to cut out that subsection which provides for increased subsidies for overspill schemes. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen will recall, but on Second Reading I moved a reasoned Amendment


for the rejection of this Bill based almost exclusively on those increases, although I also mentioned the parallel question of compensation for those whose houses in the slums are to be knocked down and for those whose property is to be acquired for these overspill schemes. On the latter point I think my right hon. Friend now leans towards a more propitious compensation scheme, particularly for those whose houses are being taken from them for demolition. I think we can leave the matter there; in any case it is not strictly relevant.
On this occasion, unless other hon. Members insist, I do not wish to run this Amendment as a major hare, but rather to revert to it on Report if that will then be in order. The reason is that some of my hon. Friends who are associated with me in tabling this Amendment cannot be present this evening—one, in particular, for very acute personal reasons.
It seems to me little short of amazing that the Government, while making necessary and satisfactory reductions in the housing subsidies for general purposes, should artificially and deliberately stimulate the subsidy in connection with these overspill arrangements. One has to ask oneself who precisely—except possibly the planners and the social engineers—benefits from these arrangements.
First of all, let us take the exporting end. At the exporting end we have the owner-occupier, perhaps occupying premises in an area which is to be acquired. On policy he will do a little better than previously, but on Government pronouncements so far and decisions of the House, his house is to be taken from him with very inadequate compensation. I question very much whether the person whose house is taken and demolished will be willing to be decanted, to use this marvellous, social engineering phrase, and sent to live in a small town fifty, sixty to eighty miles from the metropolis or the great conurbation and put into a house specially built for him at a subsidised rate. We have had replies from my right hon. Friend at Question Time which seem to indicate that there is no guarantee at all that such a man will move that distance and occupy that house.
What will happen is that the local authority at the receiving end by a tie-up with, it may be, the London County Council, will receive this specially enhanced subsidy, build the houses, and all sorts of people who are not in the least bit associated with slum clearance will fill them. I should like to ask my hon. Friend what guarantee there is that when this house has been built, with this special subsidy, it will be occupied by a slum dweller who has been moved. I am sure no guarantee is possible. On the contrary, the tax-payer is being called upon to pay an enhanced subsidy for the provision of a house which merely swells the size of some small town, or it may be some large village, in the countryside, which does not itself want to be converted into any sort of conurbation.
What will be the effect at the receiving end on agriculture? Already farmers are losing farm workers to a very large extent, due to industrialisation in their locality. How much worse will it be in the future if we select ten, fifteen or twenty small towns in the countryside, develop them, call for labour from the countryside in the building of them, and call for people from the countryside to occupy them?
I cannot see the purpose of it, and I do not believe the House, if it really thought about the problem, would want it. We are getting sick and tired of the remorseless urbanisation of our countryside, and it is no answer to this question to say that if we do not have this overspill policy we shall have the continuance of a remorseless urbanisation. We have town and country planning regulations and the philosophy on that whole subject is quite adequate to prevent ribbon development, if we insist. I think this whole process has gone by default and has not been thought out. I do not think my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has taken counsel with many of us on these benches on the matter.

Mr. Herbert Butler: Shame.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: During the summer months he was working hard in his Department, and no doubt he was infected by the philosophies of his Department and the attitude of the town and country planners, social engineers, and the like. I know that right hon. and hon.


Gentlemen opposite are in favour of this policy and always have been, but we on these benches, as far as we have thought about it—and some of us have thought about it fairly deeply—are against it. We were opposed to the Town Development Act, 1952, a Measure which was prepared by the work of right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in office. They skedaddled from office in the crisis of 1951, leaving this Bill on the stocks, and it was produced by the Civil Service in January or February, 1952.

The Deputy-Chairman: The argument of the noble Lord is a little remote from the Amendment.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Do I gather, Sir Rhys, that I am out of order?

The Deputy-Chairman: The noble Lord is getting a little remote from the Amendment.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: This policy of overspill has been quietly developing since then. During the previous Parliament that Act was not applied. It was allowed to become a moribund Act, and no special money was spent in overspill development. Now we get the Minister going to the Department during the summer months when I think he could have had a good holiday and done very much better than discovering this interesting Act and concluding that this is the time to set off on the policy of special payment for overspill development.
It is one thing to develop the policy and philosophy of the new towns; they are at least comprehensive measures. If they are not so good as Welwyn Garden City, they are at least an attempt to do something in the modern world to provide centres of amenity, culture, churches, schools and playgrounds and, one hopes, all the appurtenances of modern civilised society. I make no complaint about that, and I am not trying to take out the provisions for increased subsidy for the completion of new towns. But this policy of overspill is adding hundreds and hundreds of houses without schools or other appurtenances and without necessarily getting the drainage and water system into action. It is a completely unplanned and un-thought-out piece of enterprise. It will mean in the end that in many cases charming old towns and villages will be added to by an aggregation of houses resulting in the most hideous develop-

ment the United Kingdom has seen throughout her history. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members opposite wish to rebut that, what definite knowledge have they of plans selected for these towns and villages? I do not believe there are any, because no thinking has gone into this problem.
Because no thinking has gone into it and because of the need to conserve Government expenditure and reduce the incidence of taxation, I am seeking to move this Amendment and to secure justification for it. I do not believe my hon. Friend can stand at the Dispatch Box and say that he has the assent of the party behind him for this particular feature of the Bill. I know he cannot, and I challenge him to do it. I fundamentally and completely object on the grounds I have adduced to the passage of this part of the Bill, the rest of which carries the warm assent of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Powell: I think my noble Friend the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) will teadily understand if I do not deal with the large questions of building up or building out or the basis of compensation which he touched upon in the course of his speech. My object is to endeavour to show that the presence of this paragraph in this subsection is implicit in the grounds on which he approves the Bill and in the grounds on which it has been accepted by the House of Commons.
9.0 p.m.
The reduction and abolition of the general needs subsidy is based on the presumption that most local housing authorities will be able to provide for the general housing needs of their areas, without either charging unreasonably high rents or incurring an undue burden on the rates, if they use the subsidies which they receive on existing and future houses as a pool to be available in aid of the rents of the whole stock of houses belonging to them now and in the future.
The principle of pooling of subsidies, by whatever rent policy it is accompanied, is implicit in the principle of the Bill. I understand that the reduction and abolition of the general needs subsidy and this underlying principle that subsidies ought to be pooled over the whole range of houses belonging to a local housing authority is accepted by my noble Friend.
The corollary, however, is that in cases where no adequate pool of houses exists, so that there would be a sharp difference between the rents which have to be charged in the future as building development continued and the rents which have hitherto been charged, some special provision should be made; for we cannot accept the general principle of pooling and refuse to provide for instances where, by the nature of things, it cannot be applied. Paragraph (c) provides for one such case, namely, where a large addition to the stock of houses of a local authority is made within its boundaries for the purpose not of dealing with its own local housing need, but of helping congested towns and cities at a distance to do that which they cannot do for themselves.
Clearly, that process of decongestion can happen in one of many ways, but no hon Member, surely, would say that it is always preferable that the houses should be built by the exporting authority. Many would feel that it is desirable that the authority which provides the houses should be, to continue using the jargon, the importing authority. That is the case that we are dealing with under paragraph (c), where the importing authority, to assist in the decongestion of a great urban area at some distance, greatly adds to its stock of houses to such an extent that with any rent policy the pooling of subsidies on existing houses would still leave a very sharp difference between the old and the new rent structure. We cannot, therefore, decline to meet the case of these importing authorities who are co-operating—voluntarily, I may say—with their sister authorities in the cities and towns in meeting these special difficulties which they face.
Paragraph (c) is not a paragraph to deal with overspill as such. My noble Friend will have noted that it applies only where the houses are provided in the area of the importing authority. It does not apply where the houses are provided by the exporting authority which ex hypothesialready has a large pool of existing houses. We are not providing this higher subsidy for overspill as overspill, but to meet the case of the importing authority which provides the houses itself for the assistance of another local authority at a distance.
Nor has this measure any necessary connection with slum clearance. My

noble Friend asked how we could be sure that the tenants of these houses would be persons displaced from demolished unfit houses. That is not the intention of operations under the Town Development Act. These are directed much more at the decongestion of the urban areas, which is necessary if tolerable living densities are to be arrived at in the great towns and cities.
I would, therefore, ask my noble Friend and the Committee to recognise that the basis which underlies the Bill, the principle that, in general, local authorities will be able to meet their general housing needs by pooling the subsidies on their stock of houses, demands as a corollary that in cases where no adequate stock exists we should make special arrangements. Special arrangements are contained in paragraph (c) and if the paragraph were omitted a very strong sense of injustice would be felt by the authorities who are co-operating with their fellow authorities in this way, and the Committee would be acting in contradiction to the principles underlying the Bill.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I do not intend to withdraw. I have great respect for the Parliamentary Secretary and much affection for him and I congratulate him on his appointment, but I did not understand a single word of his explanation. It was so deliberately shrouded in metaphysical planning language that I believe that he has no sympathy with the policy pursued and shares my view that it is a profound mistake.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the co-operation of the small receiving authorities. We, of course, often find that four or five officials of the borough council and county council get worked up and excited about the prospect of receiving large masses of fresh population. They can have larger offices, bigger salaries and generally greater grandeur.
One often also finds a small number of tradespeople who think of the profits which their businesses will accrue because of the surrounding population coming into their thoroughfares and who do not realise that the traffic congestion in their tiny streets and roadways will be so great that they will have rather less custom than before.
As to the decongestion of population about which the Parliamentary Secretary spoke, what evidence is there that London will be decongested by having 20 or 30 small towns, 60 or 80 miles away, and planting on them 10,000 or 15,000 people? Is London to be frozen as an immigration centre? The population of London has remained, except for the war years and the period of very heavy bombing, fairly static in the last twenty years. I cannot see an appreciable reduction of, say, a million people sufficient to satisfy this idea of decongesting the population being achieved in a comparable time.
Who is to stop people coming from Jamaica to throng the congested areas of London at their will? Who is to stop people creating new flats in mews and crowding Soho and living where they please. [An HON. MEMBER: "Jack Spot."] If there were a complete ban on enterprise, which nothing but a Communist State could sufficiently ruthlessly organise, I could understand this policy of decentralisation of overspill. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lind-gren), who leads for the Opposition on these matters, is singularly silent in this debate. I challenge him to say whether when the party opposite returns to office it will carry out the policy of decentralisation and resettlement of population which will ensure that London is not congested, is not overstocked with natural immigration.

Mr. Lindgren: I am not going to satisfy the noble Lord's curiosity, but I assure him that we are sitting back and enjoying the scrap on the other side of the Committee.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: That is a very poor intervention. There is a point of principle and interest here, which I think the Committee should consider. If we are not disposed to do so tonight for various tactical reasons can we not return to it on the Report stage?
I think that right hon. and hon. Members opposite would perhaps like to make speeches on this subject. It is a comprehensive affair and it incorporates much that is very interesting in town and country planning legislation. The steady urbanisation of our countryside is one of the most vicious of the evils of the industrial era. No one who has read the

book Subtopia,produced by the Architectural Review, which describes a journey from Southampton to Carlisle, and records by sketches, photographs and descriptions all the grotesque and ridiculous sights to be observed from the roadway under modern conditions, can fail to take a profound interest in this subject.
I shall be only too pleased tonight if, as a result of my venturing to embark upon this topic, though not necessarily with the purpose of carrying it to a Division, we can return to it at a further stage in the Bill. I am quite certain that unless we rake serious thought about it we shall do a real industrial evil to our beautiful country just for the sake of playing about with 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 people.
The whole question must be thought out afresh. I am not satisfied with my hon. Friend's reply, but in the circumstances, and owing to the lateness of the hour, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, after "Minister," to insert "wholly or partly."

The Deputy-Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment and the Amendment in page 4, line 13, leave out "in the area of that authority," are considered together.

Mr. Powell: I think that I should say that the purpose of the two Amendments, which, I understand, for technical reasons it is necessary to take together, is quite different. The Amendment which I am moving to insert the words "wholly or partly" after "Minister" in line 13 is scarcely more than a drafting Amendment. The point behind it is this. A situation may arise in which a scheme of town development overstrides the borders of the local authority which is promoting it, so that part of the houses are built within and part outside its own boundary.
As the Clause is drafted, the result would be that it could only get the higher subsidy on the houses which happened to be inside its own borders, and in order that all the houses in the town development scheme should qualify it would be necessary for the neighbouring authority to build the houses within its boundaries so that the two pieced together, so to


speak, made up the whole scheme. That is clearly a result which the Committee would not desire, so, by inserting the words "wholly or partly," we can ensure that a local authority can proceed to a town development scheme partly inside and partly just outside its borders and receive the full subsidy on all the houses falling under the scheme.

Mr. Gibson: I say straight away that I agree that the Amendment which the Parliamentary Secretary has moved widens the effect of the substantive payment a very little in so far as a local authority has to build houses outside its own area to deal with its overspill population. But it does not by any means meet the difficulties of all our large towns.
9.15 p.m.
I am sorry that "Overlord" has gone, because I should like to discuss with him his Elizabethan philosophy. He may like to go back to the days when London had plagues, and so on, but in these modern days, when a town grows too big, we should by communal action transfer the people into more comfortable and liveable quarters elsewhere. All the large towns have this problem, and certainly we in London have it.
Some months ago it was agreed that to meet the large overspill problem in London, and in view of the shortage of sites which has arisen in this area, the London County Council should be permitted to build at Edenbridge. Unfortunately, no agreement has yet been reached with the local authority in that area. I want to ask the Minister whether this Clause would enable either the receiving authority or the exporting authority in such a case to receive the special subsidy. In principle it is the same as a new town development, but I am afraid that if neither the importing authority nor the exporting authority in that case gets the subsidy, nothing will be done.
Indeed, that is what I fear most of all about general housing as a result of this Bill. There is a limit beyond which no local authorities, including the large and wealthy ones, can spend their capital and I do not think the Government have made it any easier for them by the continual raising of the rate of interest which has to be paid on loans. That in itself will create sufficient difficulties. If, in addition, an authority which is admitted by

the Minister to have a large overspill problem, such as Manchester or Birmingham as well as London, cannot solve it without going well outside its own area, the Bill ought to provide that it is given assistance towards the capital cost of the work. If the authority does not get it, I am afraid that this necessary piece of social work and modern planning will not be done and there will be a piling up of population in London, Birmingham and Manchester, a growth of overcrowding, a worsening of the slum position and, in the end, a public uproar which will compel the Government in office to take drastic steps to solve the problem.
As I read this subsection, even with the words moved by the Parliamentary Secretary, it will not enable the subsidy to be paid either to the importing authority or the exporting authority, except perhaps if an agreement had been reached, and in the case to which I have referred no such agreement has been reached with the importing authority.
I do not want to press this point unduly, which is more exploratory than anything, but I would like to know the Ministerial attitude towards this problem.

Mr. Eric Johnson: Would my hon. Friend clear up a similar point? The Minister will be aware that under paragraph (c), if a local authority such as Manchester carried out a scheme of town development as defined under the 1952 Act, it would receive a subsidy of £24 for houses built in its own area. If an exporting authority, like Manchester, carried out a similar scheme in a receiving authority's area it would receive only £22 in the case of a slum clearance family rehoused and only £10 for an ordinary family rehoused.
I wonder whether the words "wholly or partly" put this right. Does the provision mean that if Manchester expands outside its own boundary, as it must do, almost adjacent to Manchester, it would receive the full subsidy, or does it not? It seems to me that if the same houses are to be built by the receiving authority or the exporting authority, and if they are to be provided for the same people, they ought to receive the same subsidy. I hope the words "wholly or partly" mean that they do.

Mr. Powell: I am afraid that I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for


Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) that, as the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) said, the effect of the insertion of "wholly or partly" is a very narrow one. It still leaves the subsidy restricted to houses provided by an importing authority, but enables it to be paid when those houses are provided by the importing authority only partly within its own frontiers.
On the main point in the minds of both hon. Members, I must ask the Committee to revert to the point of principle which was under discussion in connection with the last Amendment. It is the underlying assumption of the Bill, and of the reduction and abolition of housing subsidy for general needs, that local authorities who possess a large stock of houses built partly before and partly since the war will be able, by pooling the subsidies payable on those houses, to continue to build for general needs without an undue burden on the rates or the charging of unreasonable rents.
If that be so, it is equally valid whether or not the authority with the large stock of houses builds the additional houses inside or outside its own borders. It is still an addition one way or the other to its stock of houses to which it can apply, according to its own policy, the subsidies which are available to it. Therefore, there is an essential distinction between houses for the reduction of congestion according to whether the houses are provided by the exporting authority or by the importing authority.
I would, therefore, tell the Committee that it would be inconsistent with the principle of the Bill if the words
…wholly or partly in the area of that authority…
were omitted from the Clause.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 4, line 15, to leave out from "the" to "or" in line 21 and to insert:
local authority's area in which the dwelling is situated.
The Amendment has the effect of completely nullifying the Minister's intention in subsection (3, d). I move the Amendment to give the Minister an opportunity to tell the Committee what he means by the provision. Hon. Members will see from sub-paragraph (d) that the Minister can pay the old subsidy for houses

…provided by a local authority for the accommodation of persons coming from outside the area of that authority in order to meet the urgent needs of industry, where the dwelling has been so provided in accordance with arrangements approved by the Minister as being desirable by reason of special circumstances and so long as any conditions laid down by the Minister on the giving of his approval are complied with…
This is the escape Clause that the Minister has pleaded before in dealing with special housing needs, as he continually pleaded Clause 5 for another reason. Both are escape Clauses.
I shall not argue the matter at this stage, because I want first to know from the Minister what he means by the words. What are the circumstances in which he would provide the ordinary subsidy for the houses? What would be the urgent needs of industry? How would he define them? It is necessary that we should know what is in his mind, because, as I explained on a previous occasion, it is extremely undesirable that legislation should put too wide a discretion in the hands of the Minister.
The other day the Parliamentary Secretary appeared to imagine that the wider the discretion the better the Clause. That is an extraordinary point of view to put before the House of Commons. We usually like to think that when we have passed a Bill we know precisely what authority we have given to the Executive. If the Parliamentary Secretary's point of view were held good, all we would need would be one Clause saying that the Minister should have power to do what he likes in a particular field and then we could sit down and go home.
I hope that the Minister will make the reply. We want to know what are the circumstances in which he would act in order that we might have an intelligent discussion on subsection (3, d). I shall argue the case no further at this point. I shall want to take it further after we have heard what the Minister has to say. I suppose that this will carry over until tomorrow. I should like to know from the Minister how he interprets these powers.
The Minister has not risen. I should like to hear from him at this stage, because the words themselves carry no interpretation and I should like to know what he means by them. We know that there are other circumstances. We know that


he has powers in dealing with overspill and new and extended towns. This provision obviously does not apply to them, because provision for them has already been made. We want to know what these additional powers are and how he proposes to apply them.

Mr. Sandys: For the convenience of the Committee, I will intervene at this stage. I understand that the amendment is not intended as a textual one, but is intended to provide a debate on the scope of Clause 3 (3, d) dealing with a point discussed at considerable length at an earlier stage in our debate.
I thought I had made it clear on an earlier occasion that in making the provision in this Clause we particularly had in mind industries of national importance like the mining industry. Of course, the mining industry is only an example of the type of industry which we regard as being of exceptional national importance. We do not intend that every industry which considers itself in urgent need of more labour should, merely by asking the local authority for houses to meet its need, enable those houses to qualify for the higher rate of subsidy under the Clause.
Incidentally, I am not addressing myself to the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, which, I think he will agree, does not really make sense as it stands. It would, in effect, give a higher housing subsidy over the heads of local people, to any family which came into the area from outside.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: The language of my Amendment makes sense, but it is not the sense which the right hon. Gentleman wants. I am not at the moment arguing the merits of the Amendment, I am only seeking elucidation of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions.

Mr. Sandys: Yes, but my intentions about this Clause are so far removed from the terms of this Amendment that I did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman wanted me to say that I thought that the Amendment, as it stood, would be quite unacceptable. My short answer is that the Amendment removes the reference to industry altogether and gives a special subsidy to any family which goes into the district of another local authority. That might create the ridiculous position

that to get accommodation a family would have to move over to the next local authority in order that the local authority would be encouraged to house them because it would get the higher subsidy. I do not imagine that the right hon. Gentleman desires me to pursue that, but it does give me the opportunity of explaining our general attitude towards the problem.
I would like to make clear where we stand on this matter, so that there shall be no misunderstanding. By industries of national importance we are thinking of industries whose development is vital to the national economy. We are also thinking of circumstances in which these industries cannot get the labour they need unless local authorities make an exceptional effort to build additional houses. Coal mining in areas where the National Coal Board is trying to accelerate production is the obvious and outstanding example. Other cases may be those of new generating stations or atomic energy plant which, for one reason or another, have to be sited in remote areas. There may also be other industrial projects where expansion might be sufficiently important and exceptional to make them eligible for consideration under these provisions of the Bill.
The kind of case I had in mind is where the need for more houses arises from a major new development which is essential in the national interest and which must be carried out in an area where the local authority has only a small pool of existing houses or, for other reasons, could not reasonably be expected to build a large number of additional houses without the benefit of this higher subsidy. Those are the sort of special circumstances which I should look for and about which I should need to be satisfied in order to consider that a housing scheme would qualify for the higher subsidy under Clause 3 (3, d). I hope that I have said enough to give the right hon. Gentleman a broad indication of our approach to this paragraph and its scope.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman has been quite clear so far as he has gone, but this subsection is a perfect illustration of the difficulty which he is bound to encounter when he has to administer the Measure. Where there is an unusual influx of people into a locality


because of certain industrial needs, he sees the necessity for co-operation between the central Government and the local authority by way of an additional financial inducement. In other words, he is trying to put back, in some circumstances, what the Bill takes away.
At the moment local authorities are in partnership with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—a healthy partnership which has been established by virtue of the fact that, ever since the end of the war, the Government have agreed to share the cost of housing with local authorities. The Government now intend to dissolve that partnership. In the case of most of the houses that will be built subsequently to those now in tender, they intend to pay no subsidy at all, so ending the co-operation established in 1945, which recognised explicitly that public housing was an operation in which the central Government were interested equally with local government. Local authorities are to do what they like in regard to the provision of housing for general needs and, indeed, of other housing.
Having made that general decision, the Minister and his Department are bound to recognise that the matter cannot end at that point, because at certain times a national interest might arise in certain localities. In such cases the central Government must resume the partnership that the Bill violates and re-establish the subsidy in order to persuade the local authorities to build the houses. The right hon. Gentleman is asking the House of Commons to arm him with powers of capricious decision in order to repair the ravages of his own Measure and try to make good the mischief which it does.
These provisions would be unnecessary if the Minister had maintained the partnership which formerly existed. He could then easily persuade local authorities to do what he wants them to do. I had to do that over and over again. For example, in rural areas, where, as a result of the policies pursued for so many years, it was found that there was a deficiency of building labour, I had to encourage the creation of a special type of house to supplement local building resources. We built about 21,000 of those houses. I am not speaking now of the temporary house or the B.I.S.F. house; I am speaking of the concrete house. We found that we

had to devise a type of building material which could be used by the small builder, who could not lay his hands upon enough skilled building labour in the deep rural areas. Those houses may be seen in various parts of the country today.
It was not very difficult to do this because, owing to the financial partnership between the central Government and local authorities, we were able to persuade them to build those houses in supplementation of the traditional houses being built up to the capacity of the building resources of rural builders. A few days ago I mentioned a similar case in regard to additional unconventional houses in the coal areas. We had to hand exactly what we wanted. That was a continuing partnership by which we could adjust the activities of local authorities to the national general needs.
The Minister now says, having got rid of that financial inducement, "I must try to put it back in certain cases." He is now compelled to say that only where there is an influx of additional people, creating an exceptional local problem, will he re-establish the financial partnership. That is what he said. He is not able to deal at all with a continuing normal need, say on the part of agriculture. The creation of agricultural houses is declining very rapidly. Anyone who understands the problem of rural housing knows that one of the most serious difficulties facing the agricultural industry is the finding of skilled labour, because there is no accommodation for it.
Does the right hon. Gentleman say that to cut down our import of foodstuffs is not a national need? Yet he is depriving himself of the opportunity of the agency of the instrument for inducing the local authorities in rural areas to build enough houses. I should have thought that if the housing policy of the Government had any organic relationship to the national needs the continuing provision of additional rural houses would stand almost in front of mining.
We are told almost every day by a spokesman of the Government that the gravest possible crisis facing the country arises from the balance of payments situation. That situation is directly attributable to the fact that we are spending a very large proportion of our finances in buying food and animal foodstuffs from


abroad. We would have thought, therefore, that the stimulation of domestic agricultural production would occupy a foremost position in Government policy. Instead of that, at the same time as the Prime Minister makes these speeches, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is scratching his head trying to find better solutions than those of his predecessor found, and every public-spirited person in Great Britain is anxiously concerned about our balance of payments position, Government supporters march like sheep through the Lobby supporting a Government who are doing their utmost to hamstring agricultural production.
That is an astonishing situation. If hon. Members do not believe it, let them look at the figures or consult their own experience. I know, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, that in the deep rural areas agricultural labour is extremely difficult to get. That is almost directly due to the absence of rural amenities and of enough houses. I have pleaded with the Government, and I warn hon. Members opposite that they will pay a very high price indeed for the Bill. I warned them before about the other Bill that became an Act. "Operation Rescue" it was called. It has not rescued anybody. It certainly did not rescue the Minister, because he left office very soon.

Mr. Sandys: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to what he is addressing himself? I should like to know.

Mr. Bevan: Agricultural needs.

Mr. Sandys: Is he complaining that the Bill does not provide an additional subsidy for a large influx of agricultural workers into an area, or that we are not providing the higher subsidy for the agricultural population already resident in the area?

Mr. Bevan: I am merely pointing out that if the right hon. Gentleman is arming himself with power to deal with the urgent needs of industry, no industry has a more urgent need for additional housing than agriculture.

Mr. Sandys: For the existing population?

Mr. Bevan: Certainly.

Mr. Sandys: That is my point. If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to that it has no relation to this paragraph at all.

Mr. Bevan: I have been trying to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that what he has done by the provisions of the Bill is to rupture the financial relationship between the local authorities and the State and is now having to put back some part of the machinery in order to deal with certain instances. I am trying to point out that there are certain instances, such as agriculture, where it would be essential for the housing policy of the Government to have some relationship to national needs. That is what I am trying to point out to him.

Mr. Sandys: In support of this Amendment, which asks for a £24 subsidy for persons coming into the district, I cannot see the relationship to that.

Mr. Bevan: The Minister is unable to see any relationship of any argument put by this side at all. He can only see his own relationship. I say that before very long hon. Members opposite will see the consequences of his policy, and what I am striving to do is to persuade him to change that policy as soon as possible or he will be making a very considerable contribution towards the embarrassment of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would therefore urge that he reconsiders that aspect.
A further point is the absence of precision in what the right hon. Gentleman is to consider when deciding whether or not to give the additional subsidy. He cites industries of national importance and has mentioned coal and atomic energy. Must they be industries in that sense of the word? A firm may establish in an area a factory which demands a very considerable influx of people into that area—it may be in North Wales or in a very rural area. If that firm's industrial operations resulted in an exceptional housing need there, does the Minister consider that the local authority concerned would be able to obtain the additional subsidy?
It may be that the industry could not itself be regarded at the national level as of high priority, but that would not make the situation of the local authority any easier. The industry would create an exceptional industrial need in the area and a consequent large influx of people. Does


the right hon. Gentleman consider that that might attract from him a higher subsidy? We should like to know, because, if he is going to itemise them, it would appear that the only sort of circumstance in which the higher subsidy could be attracted would be where the industry concerned was a nationalised industry—the atomic industry, the railways or the Coal Boad.
This is a very interesting speculation. It means that the only industries which can qualify as industries of high priority in the national need are the nationalised industries. Is that what we are to understand?

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am informed that the copper mines at Amlwch in North Wales may be reopened, and that a small shipbuilding industry may be established there in a few months, in which event a hundred new council houses would be needed in that area. I think that it is relevant to ask the Minister whether that would attract the higher subsidy.

Mr. Bevan: That is what I am asking, because the only illustrations we have had so far are that the right hon. Gentleman does not find it difficult to define exceptional industrial needs where the industry is nationalised. His embarrassments would, therefore, be reduced if we nationalised more industries, because we should then know exactly how to adjust the priorities. Unfortunately, the problem of my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) will not be met, and for a very good and simple reason, that if a particular industrialist, in competition with others in the same industry, established a works in a particular area and was able to obtain staff for his works as against his competitors in another part of the country, then the right hon. Gentleman would be exercising his powers in a manner nearing nepotism. He would then be using public finances to favour one industrialist against his rivals.
Hon. Members opposite do not mean that, do they? They do not mean that the right hon. Gentleman is arming himself with powers in order to make it possible for one industrialist to staff his works as against another—otherwise we should be back to the time of Lord North. Is that what is meant? I should not imagine that it is.
We should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether it is so; whether there are to be any backstair methods, whether he is to be nobbled, or whether he is to have undue influence. I know sufficient about the right hon. Gentleman to believe that he has not that in mind at all. I am quite certain that he is sufficiently public-spirited and sufficiently scrupulous and desirous of maintaining the highest possible standards that he would not use public money merely in order to favour one business rival against another.
If that be the case, we are driven to the conclusion that the only circumstance in which he can use these powers at all is where the industry is nationalised. That is a tribute to nationalisation which we never thought possible. The only circumstance in which the right hon. Gentleman can be virtuous is where we have pioneered, because otherwise he is in a very great difficulty: he either has to be nepotistic or he has to assist nationalisation. What an awful dilemma for a Conservative Minister. We have there an encouragement on our part to nationalise more industries, and then the right hon. Gentleman will be able to have a sensible housing policy. Until industries are nationalised, we cannot go any further. Take steel, for example. Hon. Members opposite are dismantling the industry [HON. MEMBERS:"NO."] Yes; they are dismantling public ownership.

Mr. Sandys: Output is higher than ever.

Mr. Bevan: The Minister says that output is higher than ever. It is not yet all in private hands, and already the steel owners are warning us that they might be producing too much steel. The right hon. Gentleman must learn his facts. In 1945 we were producing less than 12 million tons of steel, and under public direction and public ownership this was raised to nearly 20 million tons. Even now we are spending far more dollars on imported steel than we should be spending.
In the case of steel, if the industry had remained in public hands, and there arose an exceptional need for houses for steel workers, the power would exist, for the right hon. Gentleman could do the same for steel as he says he can do for atomic energy, coal and railways. Those industries, being nationalised, he would not have to discriminate, but as soon as


steel is handed back to private enterprise he cannot do this without favouring one steel firm against another. Or does he intend to do it? If Lancashire steel competes with South Wales steel, is he to provide it with cheap houses as against its rivals? Will he do it? We should like to know.
As I tried to explain earlier, it would not be easy to do that, and it would not be easily defended because other people in the industry would soon complain. They would say, as the Tories say over and over again, "Why should my tax be greater in order to make my rivals better off?" The right hon. Gentleman finds himself in this situation; the more industry is taken into public ownership the more sensible and intelligent his housing policy becomes, and the more extensive private enterprise is the more nonsensical is his housing policy and the less is he able to adjust his policy to the national needs. It seems to me that he has completely exposed the futility of his policy and revealed to hon. Members opposite that his housing policy has not been conceived to fit in at all with the requirements of the nation as a whole.

Mr. MacColl: I feel that we ought not to part with this Amendment without a little further probing of the real meaning of the paragraph we are seeking to remove. The right hon. Gentleman rather poked fun at the Amendment by suggesting that it was vague and indeterminate in its meaning, that it left too wide the discretion for local authorities and implied that the words he has introduced into the Bill are models of accuracy and precision. I think a certain amount of obligation rests on the Government, who introduced this paragraph, to be accurate and precise in the words they use.
This has to be discussed in housing committees all over the country. The

advisers of local authorities have to make reports to housing committees precisely defining the circumstances in which they will receive this subsidy from the Government. Surely it places an impossible task on anyone who has to try to interpret this paragraph and make precise recommendations or advise local authorities.
There is an Amendment in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), in line 16, to leave out from "industry" to "or" in line 21. That Amendment seeks to probe this matter. If we are to decide whether or not the Amendment my right hon. Friend has moved is looser than the original words, surely we need to know what precisely is the meaning of the discretion which rests with the Minister. How are we to judge whether or not arrangements are likely to receive the approval of the Minister? How is a local authority, trying to develop its housing programme and which has been discussing the possibilities of exporting people or receiving people from another area, to decide whether this kind of proposal is likely to receive the approval of the Minister?
How can that local authority make up its mind whether the Minister is likely to think its proposals are desirable by reason of special circumstances? What kind of circumstances is the Minister going to regard as special? If this were a straightforward case that wherever there was an urgent housing need, a need to bring in industrial workers and provide them with housing the kind of case which my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) mentioned—

It being Ten o'clock,The CHAIRMAN Left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

FLAX MILLS (CLOSURE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield]

10.1 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger: I rise to voice my protest against the Government's decision to close the flax processing mills at present operating in this country. These mills were established early in the war because it was necessary to have a home flax industry, otherwise we should have been deprived of all the flax we needed. This provided home-produced flax in place of the imported flax on which we had previously relied.
Flax is valuable for all sorts of purposes. It was useful to us during the war for all the Armed Forces and Civil Defence. It is the basis of canvas, sail cloth, tarpaulins, tents, fire hose, sacking and scores of purposes that have been outlined in the technical journals. It is the source of a valuable industry. In 1954, £9 million worth was produced in cloth, yarn and twine, of which over £2 million worth was exported, apart from the export of made-up goods, which makes a valuable contribution to our export trade and earns foreign currency.
These mills were set up to meet an emergency. Is it to be contended that the emergency is now over? If so, it will be difficult to justify the closing of these mills, set up for that emergency purpose, at a time when we are building up emergency strategic stocks of all kinds of materials, particularly food, some of which involve us in heavy losses from time to time. I contend that we need these flax mills as an insurance against any emergency that might arise again and which might prevent us from importing the flax that we need.
We have built up skill, machinery, mills and technical research in a special department. All these things are making a valuable contribution to British industry. If we close the mills, as the Government have started doing and propose to continue to do, we shall dissipate a team of skilled workers, we shall lose the accumulated benefits of the research work they have already done and we shall leave the market in Britain clear for foreign flax to be imported, which will cost foreign

currency and might even, in the absence of competition from home-produced flax, cause prices to rise. We shall lose a valuable export trade in flax seed. I understand that Ireland depends almost entirely upon English seed for its own flax industry. It has been said that Ireland can get similar flax seed from Canada, but that involves the spending of dollars and nobody within the sterling area today looks forward to any proposal for spending more dollars.
The one point which has been advanced by the President of the Board of Trade in defence of his policy is that it would save money which is being spent because of the loss on home-produced flax. I understand that the loss is at present running at the rate of about £250,000 a year. If that amount is correct—it may well be more or less—it is a considerable sum of money, but the saving on it might well be offset if farmers no longer grew flax but in its place turned to another crop, such as wheat, which has a guaranteed price, which would carry with it a payment from the Government and which might well mean that the estimated £250,000 which would be saved would be cut by at least two-thirds if farmers were to turn to a wheat crop rather than a flax crop.
I have yet to learn who supports the Board of Trade and which organisation or body of people connected with this industry supports the Board in its proposal. I have learned of a great deal of opposition to it. I understand that the organised workers in the factories are against the proposal. They would be, of course, because it means that the skill which they have put into the industry, in many cases for 20 years, will be lost. They will have to seek alternative employment elsewhere, sometimes in rather remote rural areas, and if they are getting on in years the prospect of alternative work is not very rosy.
The research technicians who are organised through an association have intimated that they are against the proposal. The spinners who use the flax have intimated in no uncertain terms, in a very well-produced booklet circulated to hon. Members, that they are against it. The farmers who grow the flax are definitely against the suggestion. One of the mills in question is situated at


Howden, about 100 yards outside my constituency. About 120 workers are employed there, of whom about 100 come into the mill to work from my constituency. I understand that the mill is provided with flax grown by about 120 small farmers, with an average acreage of 12 per farm.
The farmers like this flax. It is a cash crop. It is good as an eliminator of eel worm and it helps to create a healthy soil. It is a very good rotation crop and the farmers like to get the chaff from the mill afterwards. The chaff is valuable feeding stuff and saves the import of feeding stuff from abroad. That is the picture locally, and I understand that there is exactly the same picture in other parts of the country. I understand on good authority from the National Farmers' Union that farmers generally who are concerned with flax crops share the views of the 120 in my locality in Yorkshire. Furthermore, the N.F.U. states, perhaps with a certain amount of embarrassment, that it has not been consulted by the Board of Trade on this move which affects its members.
The N.F.U. states that some time ago it offered consultations on a technical level with representatives of the Board of Trade, but the offer was not taken up. It says that it has experts who could put forward to the Board of Trade various ways of continuing this industry at lower cost and cutting the losses to which the Board of Trade objects. I would put forward some practical suggestions for the consideration of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade who is to reply to the debate.
First, it is necessary on strategic grounds and moral grounds and from the point of view of agriculture to keep this industry alive. I concede that it is perhaps not necessary to keep all the mills which are at present open running in the way in which they are running today. It may be necessary to concentrate on a few mills only, equipping them with more up-to-date machinery and cutting the total loss on the industry to the Treasury. As a result of the activities of the research team which has been working for the last two years on flax production, there is confidence in the industry that with some up-to-date machinery the loss can be cut by a great deal, because the present yield of fibre from flax can be doubled if the

wartime machinery now used were scrapped and more up-to-date machinery were obtained.
When I first raised this matter in response to requests from my constituents, 10 mills were open and working. There are now only nine. Therefore, the matter is becoming very urgent. There is still time to reconsider the whole question. The technical knowledge of experts is available. The National Farmers' Union has specialists and research workers who are prepared to discuss with the nominees of the Board of Trade the question of the reorganisation of the industry on sound lines and perhaps with fewer mills. I hope that the Board of Trade will reconsider its decision. I hope that it will take a new look at the industry and decide to keep open the existing nine mills—a decision which would be both popular and right.

10.10 p.m.

Commander R. Scott-Miller: I should like to refer to what the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) has said and ask my hon. and learned Friend whether he would look at this matter again. I know that this flax scheme costs the taxpayer about £500,000 a year, and I am the last person to ask for the spending of public money if it can be avoided. Nevertheless I understand from the National Farmers' Union that it is firmly of the opinion that the flax industry could be run on a limited scale and on a sound economic basis, with small cost to the taxpayer.
This scheme was started by private enterprise in 1931. I should like to underline the farmers' point of view in this matter. About 16,000 acres of our farm land is down to flax and 2,000 acres of that is in the County of Norfolk. It is quite right to say that it is a good rotation crop, and one which is very helpful and popular among our farmers.
I have a particular interest in this matter, because I have one of these mills in my constituency on the Royal Estate, at Sandringham. This mill is agreed by everyone to be the most efficient in the country. Over the last six years it has produced the best fibre extraction rate throughout the whole scheme. It would be a bad thing to close that mill if it could be kept going, because not only would about 200 industrial workers in that factory be deprived of their jobs, but


it would mean that the splendid work done by the small research team at that factory would be thrown to the winds.
It takes ten years to grow the right type of flax, and I feel most strongly that we should at least keep one mill to provide the nucleus of the crop. I therefore ask my hon. and learned Friend to reconsider this matter in that light.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Dye: I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) for raising this matter which, as he said, affects his constituency. It is also a matter in which farmers over a great part of the country are interested. We were shocked to learn that it is apparently the intention of the Government to bring to an end the growing of flax in this country and the manufacture of it for industrial and other purposes.
This would indeed be a blow to those farmers who have been growing flax as one of their crops in rotation. It would mean, as my hon. Friend pointed out, finding another crop to take its place in the rotation—one which has the same purpose, namely, of providing a complete change in the plant food taken from the soil which would enable it in that year to kill some of the pests which prey upon the other crops in the rotation. Therefore, it has a value greater than its own inherent value as a crop.
If, therefore, we are now to reach the position when we shall no longer be able to depend on a certain proportion of home-grown flax, but shall be dependent upon imported flax, then we shall lose in knowledge and experience. And we shall be giving up this crop at a time when we must be spending an enormous amount on rearmament, on providing against the possibility of having to face a situation similar to that which we faced in 1939 to 1945.
It does not seem that we should do this, and if it is said that £500,000 a year is an excessive sum to spend for this purpose on a crop which has so many uses in industry and commerce, as well as being vital in time of war, we should ask Her Majesty's Government to reconsider this matter, rather than to reach a position which may upset the farming community and deprive us of an article which was vital to our needs during the last war and which may be so again. Therefore,

I hope that in replying tothe debate, the hon. and learned Gentleman will have something better to say than what he may be considering saying at the moment.

10.16 p.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: I support the plea made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger). He referred to a pamphlet produced by the Flax Manufacturers' Association. That pamphlet was inspired from my constituency. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that on strategic, on trade, and on other grounds it is of interest to the flax trade, quite apart from the farming community, that a certain amount of flax should continue to be grown in this country. This would then be available if ever again we were at war.
My constituency used to clothe the Navy in sail and it is making sail for the model "Mayflower" which will cross the Atlantic shortly. With that great tradition I think we should not part with this crop because, if we do so, and rely entirely on foreign flax, we may find ourselves short of flax when we really need it.

10.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): The House is indebted to the hon. Members for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) and Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) and to my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for King's Lynn (Commander Scott-Miller) and South Angus (Captain Duncan) for the lucid, temperate and persuasive way in which they have put their case on this matter. I do not say that there is no substance in the points which they have made, but it is the duty of the Government to look at this matter as a whole and to see whether the sum total of these considerations outweighs the plain and disagreeable economic facts of this case. Those facts are that this scheme has always been run at a loss, that the loss was increasing and that it was thereby involving an increasingly heavy subsidisation by the taxpayer.
The hon. Member for Goole said that the Board of Trade has no supporters in this matter. That may not be a matter for great surprise because, where economy is involved, it is well known that, although all subscribe to it as a general principle,


specific acts of economy are generally friendless. In this case, however, the Government have been driven to the inescapable conclusion that these considerations do not justify a continuance of the scheme and a consequential increasing burden on the public purse.
The hon. Member for Goole referred to a loss of about £250,000 a year. Of course, as subsequent hon. Members have made clear.the loss is in fact a good deal more than that. It was however not only the size of the loss but the trend of the loss which was showing a marked increase.
If I may give the House the figures for the year ending July, 1952, there was a loss of £89,000, whereas two years later, for the year ending July, 1954, the loss had grown to £547,000. There was at the time the Government decided to discontinue the scheme, in August, 1954, a loss running at about £500,000 a year.
Though there had been increases in wages and other costs, the main reasons for the increased loss were the higher costs that had to be paid to the farmers for growing the crop, together with the lower level of prices at which the flax and some of the by-products had to be sold. Therefore, we had the position that, whereas the price to be paid to the farmer was going up, the price received for the sale of the processed product was going down. Thus, for the 1951 crop the farmer's price was 10 guineas per ton. For the 1954 crop it had risen to 14 guineas per ton.
Looking at the other side of the equation, in the year ending July, 1952, the world price for flax was £300 per ton, but in the period immediately preceding August, 1954, the date of the decision, the price had gone down to a little over £200 a ton. The trend since the date of the decision to discontinue has fully confirmed the unwelcome wisdom of this decision. It is true that the price to the farmer for the 1955 crop showed a slight decline to £14 per ton, but the world price of flax fell to £180 per ton. The cost of producing a ton of flax was £500 and the world price of flax only £180, showing a net loss of £320 per ton.
It is right that the House should have the matter in perspective and to record that the annual output of the ten flax factories—now only nine, as the hon.

Member said—was running at a rate of something less than 2,000 tons, and that figure had to be set against a total United Kingdom consumption in the neighbourhood of 45,000 tons, which means that that production represented only about 5 per cent. of our total consumption.
The hon. Member for Goole referred to the position of Northern Ireland. Before the Government reached their decision in August, 1954, they consulted the Government of Northern Ireland and received the assurance that it would be possible for Northern Ireland to build up an alternative source of seed supplies by the time supplies from this country were no longer available.
With regard to the Scottish position, to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus has referred, only 10–15 per cent. of the raw material of the Scottish flax spinning and weaving industry was obtained from these mills. The actual figure for 1954 was 1,571 tons out of the 14,000 tons actually used in Scotland during that year.
Both the mills to which specific reference has been made, the Howden Mill in the constituency of the hon. Member for Goole and the West Newton Mill in the constituency of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for King's Lynn, will remain in operation until the end of processing the 1955 flax crop. That is to say, they will not be disposed of until some time in the course of 1957.
That will give a very reasonable time, as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has pointed out in the House, for the workers to obtain alternative employment. He pointed out, in answer to the hon. Member for Goole on 23rd November, 1954, that the Ministry of Labour would do its best to help them to find other employment. In point of fact the total number of people employed at these mills is only 721, and no mill, except the mills in Norfolk and Lincoln, employs more than 100 people.
In general, as the House is aware, there is no shortage of jobs, and it is to be hoped that the workers who leave the flax factories will be able to obtain jobs either in agriculture or in light industry in the neighbourhood. The hon. Member for Goole referred to the special position of elderly workers. I should tell him that this is not in fact an industry with an


elderly age structure. More than half of the people employed are under 40.
So far as the older people are concerned, if it is found towards the end of a particular operation at a mill that it is likely to prove extremely difficult for reasons of age or infirmity for a few workers to find alternative employment, the Directorate of Home Flax Production will do the best it can to find other work in the mill to keep them on pay as long as possible. It may not always be possible as suitable work may not be available, but it will do what it can.
The hon. Member for Goole said that the benefit of research would be lost. It is true that the closing down of the scheme also involves the closing down of the research development, but I am happy to say that it does not mean that the benefit of the research work will be lost, because the history of this flax scheme, together with all supporting records, is being prepared and will be preserved against any possible future need of the kind to which the hon. Member for Goole and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus referred.
Hon. Members referred to the possibilities of economies. It is of course true that economies are always possible, but we are convinced with knowledge of many years of operation and research that nothing could be done which would more than touch the fringe of this problem, unless considerable sums are to be spent on plant and new machinery. As I think the hon. Member appreciates, the machinery in these mills was installed in wartime and was designed to deal with green flax. The method now used is to

ret the flax and then scutch it, which requires different machinery.
Even if we were to incur the expense of this re-equipment, we are satisfied that the use of this more modern machinery would not make a large enough reduction in the loss to justify continuing the scheme. I should say that, of course, if there is this confidence in the scheme, there is nothing to stop private interests from cultivating and processing flax if they so wish. Should the flax industry in Scotland or any other body think it worth while to make an offer to buy one or more of the Government-owned factories with a view to their subsequent operation as private undertakings, the offer will be very carefully considered along with others that may be made.
I have done my best within the limitations of time to answer the points made. I must conclude as I began that, although the Government recognise that a decision of this kind must result in some difficulties of various kinds to the interests affected, we do not consider that the sum total of the arguments justifies continuance of the expenditure of half a million pounds a year from public funds to maintain this small scheme covering only about 16,000 acres of land. Therefore, it is an unwelcome necessity that these mills be closed down.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the Debate having continued for half an hour,Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.